This page is for discussion or presentation of news related to global warming and its issues.

258 Thoughts on “News

  1. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2011 at 11:46 am said:

    Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm

    Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages
    This is an amazing depiction and documentation of the “scare machine” and has really backfired on Time Magazine, The New York Times and others pushing a “denier machine” meme I think

  2. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2011 at 8:36 am said:

    Borenstein “obtains” a draft IPCC report, spins it up on the coat-tails of “similar” events, and media editors dutifully spread the joy.

    APNewsbreak: Panel says wild weather worsens

    By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

    WASHINGTON — Freakish weather disasters — from the sudden October snowstorm in the Northeast U.S. to the record floods in Thailand — are striking more often. And global warming is likely to spawn more similar weather extremes at a huge cost, says a draft summary of an international climate report obtained by The Associated Press.

    The final draft of the report from a panel of the world’s top climate scientists paints a wild future for a world already weary of weather catastrophes costing billions of dollars. The report says costs will rise and perhaps some locations will become “increasingly marginal as places to live.”

    The report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be issued in a few weeks, after a meeting in Uganda. It says there is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases.

    This marks a change in climate science from focusing on subtle changes in daily average temperatures to concentrating on the harder-to-analyze freak events that grab headlines, cause economic damage and kill people. The most recent bizarre weather extreme, the pre-Halloween snowstorm, is typical of the damage climate scientists warn will occur — but it’s not typical of the events they tie to global warming.


    “Freakish weather disasters….are striking more often” apparently.

    Get ready for a very alarming IPCC report to be released soon in an effort to hype up COP17 Durban.

    One question: how exactly was Thailand’s massive flood plain (the size of Florida with Bangkok at the base) formed, except by massive floods?

  3. Seth Borenstein, this guy?

    AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it

    or this one?
    Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting

    yet the NZ “media” dutifully regurgitate his words.

    (These were the top two search results when Googling his name)

  4. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2011 at 6:26 pm said:

    Looks like AFP “obtained” a copy of the draft report too:-

    Climate change linked to extreme weather


    A draft UN report three years in the making concludes that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heat waves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in the future.

    The document being discussed by the world’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable than others.

    Hundreds of scientists working under the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) will vet the phonebook-sized draft at a meeting in Kampala of the 194-nation body later this month.


    AFP obtained a copy of the draft report’s 20-page Summary for Policymakers, which is subject to revision by governments before release on November 18.

    Most of these events match predicted impacts of manmade global warming, which has raised temperatures, increased the amount of water in the atmosphere and warmed ocean surface temperatures — all drivers of extreme weather.

    But teasing apart the role of natural fluctuations in the weather and rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has proven devilishly difficult for scientists.


    The new report’s main conclusions about future trends include:

    – It is “virtually certain” — 99-100% sure — that the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes will increase over the 21st century on a global scale;


    The re-re-framing of AGW via complicit media

  5. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm said:

    LA Times “obtained” a copy

    You Have Got To Be Kidding – A Los Angeles Times Article Titled “‘Snowtober’ Fits U.N. Climate Change Predictions”


    The historic snowstorm in the northeast United States a few days ago was due to an unusually far south Polar jet stream for this time of the year, and colder than average temperatures associated with the east coast storm. To claim that this event fits with the IPCC climate change predictions is ridiculous. The article reads as an op-ed in the guise of a news article.

  6. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm said:

    The NZHerald are no longer even trying to hide the fact that they are altering webpage links by sceptics in the comments on AGW articles to make them inoperable. Check out this story:

    Now look at the comment by ‘NZCimate (New Zealand) 11:46 AM Friday, 2 Dec 2011’

    His link has been altered so the word corruption is now ‘climategate-2-and-c*********-of-peer-review/’

    I wrote a reply to it pointing out the alteration and showing it should be ‘corruption’. Looking at the preview in my account, it is appearing as the following:

    ‘I see the NZHerald moderators have been altering peoples links again when they point to things that go against their personal beliefs. The missing part of the link that someone from the Herald has removed should read -c*********-of-peer-review/
    Sums up the AGW crowd really, or as Phil Jones would say – ‘hide the decline’. Such a shame that a great newspaper such as the NZ Herald has let their standards slip so far.’

    I’ve caught the moderators doing it over & over & have let the editors know repeatedly but they let it continue.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2011 at 6:18 pm said:

    Message received and transmitted to comments (I’m Nonentity at NZ Herald BTW)

    Anthropogenic Global Cooling – Ha!, gets me every time.

  8. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am said:

    (To the moderator – Richard C posted something to this thread yesterday and it isn’t appearing. If the ‘older comments’ link is clicked it shows 127 comments, but when the ‘newer comments’ link is clicked it shows 126 comments. The comment is missing in action. Could you please check it out as I’m quite interested to see what it says? Many Thanks.)

    [I’ve searched for this but come up empty. There’s nothing caught in the spam trap and nothing awaiting moderation. Any clue to its content? Perhaps Richard C might enlighten us? – RT]

  9. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 8:00 am said:

    I think I might give up on the NZ Herald. There’s only a tiny handful of deluded AGW believers left as the others have given up, and the drop in the amount of comments there shows that either everyone’s had enough of AGW, or they are sick of the tabloid journalism at the Herald’s sacred alter to climate change. Jeez, the moderators there are starting to resemble John Cook, I’m just wondering how long before they start altering people’s comments as well as the web links they provide.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2011 at 8:38 am said:

    RT, AGC has copied a comment submitted to NZ Herald, not CCG sorry.

    AGC, it takes a while for the Herald mods to post up the comments so give it time. It may not be cleared over the weekend but here’s hoping. BTW the comment count is 27 not 127.

    I’ve had problems with Herald comments in the past but it turned out to be a an automated correction feature that alters spelling, changes caps e.g. NOAA to noaa and generally stuffs everything up including formatting..

    How that feature could change corruption to c********* beats me though but there is 9 * (wild cards?) so either it’s the auto-correction or the Editor was very careful.

  11. RT, AGC has copied a comment submitted to NZ Herald, not CCG sorry.


  12. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm said:

    Hi Richard T. There’s something wrong with the comments on this page. As I mentioned previously a comment wasn’t visible, but when I posted about it it reappeared. Now that both you & Richard C have since posted the comments are disappearing again. I’ve tried both Safari on a Mac & Firefox on Windows but the result is the same. You can delete this comment after you’ve read it if you like.

  13. Ok. So this comment has appeared, because I can see it.

    What leads you to say that “the comments are disappearing again”?

  14. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm said:

    After I posted my ‘to the moderator’ post at December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am both of the posts by Richard C @ December 3, 2011 at 8:38 & yourself @ December 3, 2011 at 8:48 wouldn’t show. I knew they were there as I could see that you’d both posted in the Latest Comments on the right side of the page. Also when I clicked the Older Comments link the amount of comments would show more (131), but when I clicked back to Newer Comments the last one was my original at December 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm, & the number of comments was back to 127. Having said that your latest one seems ok.

  15. Well, I appreciate your feedback, AGC, and the trouble you’ve gone to, thanks.

    Just one puzzling point: at 1:51pm, when you said “the comments are disappearing again”, do you think you were mistaken?

    I think the important thing is that the comments are fixed now. We can probably put the strange behaviour earlier down to the fact that the database was confused. I and other posters were updating several things simultaneously and our separate caches were in different states. As long as it’s now well behaved I think I can relax.

    If you have no objection within a few hours, I’ll delete this little exchange.

  16. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 3:00 pm said:

    Sorry Richard but it’s done it again. I need to post something to see what you just said. it doesn’t matter so much to me, but I’m wondering if I’m the only one.

  17. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 3:01 pm said:

    Feel free to delete it all Richard.

  18. Yes, I’m a bit concerned too. But it’s working for me. Just a thought: you must be refreshing the page just to see that there’s a new comment, right? So this advice won’t help. But, to refresh the view, you press F5. You know about that?

  19. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 3:20 pm said:

    I didn’t know about the F5. I’ve seen this sort of thing before but it usually comes right after 30 mins. or so. Hopefully it’s just a temporary glitch. I’ll keep an eye on it for you if you like & let you know if it’s continuing on a longer term.

    Damn computers always seem to develop a mind of their own every once in a while.

  20. Right. What I was thinking of was that, instead of waiting that 30 mins or so for the cache to update itself, you might try pressing F5, which forces an immediate refresh. Then you might see the displayed comments match the number of comments reported in the sidebar. Let me know!

  21. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm said:

    I tried the f5 key but it doesn’t refresh. Perhaps it’s because I’m using Safari.

  22. Yes, could be. I’d look for the equivalent, something like View | Refresh.

  23. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 3, 2011 at 4:08 pm said:

    I used the refresh button but it gave the same results. It seems ok now.

  24. Ctrl F5 does a fuller refresh than just F5

  25. Richard C (NZ) on December 5, 2011 at 7:34 am said:

    My comment has been posted this morning but the question to the Editors as to why the word “corruption” in NZ Climate’s link had been corrupted is deleted and the corruption remains in the link.

  26. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 5, 2011 at 9:45 am said:

    They deleted my comment on the changing of the weblink also. Usually they just change 1 character so that the poster doesn’t notice, but now they don’t even try to hide what they’re doing. I think they have a greenie as a moderator or editor, but it only happens some times which suggests that not all their moderators are at it. The thing that gets up my nose is the editor allows it to happen – I’ve sent numerous emails alerting him to the fact. It exposes the decline of the journalistic standards at the NZ Herald – the paper is starting to look like the Guardian or the BBC, and the editorial practices are resembling John Cook’s altering of comments on his scepticalscience.conjob website.

  27. Speaking of John Cook, I see that SkS have now released the “debunking handbook”

    Some fun comments in the thread

  28. Richard C (NZ) on December 6, 2011 at 11:57 am said:

    Curious that when when Gandalf posts a comment, BEST reads BEST but when I submit a comment BEST reads best.

    Gandalf must have friends in Herald places, either that or he’s in the place.

  29. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm said:

    I often wonder whether Gandalf works for the NZ Herald, it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve been reading the comments for about 5 yrs now & he was there before I started. He lies his ass off & when you back him into a corner he’ll just start back at the beginning of the debate again like nothing happened. I see he’s just said that the ACT party believe the ‘climates been cooling for the last 100 years’. There’s only one thing worse than a lying nutter, & that’s a know-it-all lying nutter.

    Comment 02:07 PM Tuesday, 6 Dec 2011

  30. More propaganda from The Herald, this time from Greenpeace’s Cindy Baxter

  31. Richard C (NZ) on December 7, 2011 at 7:59 pm said:

    This Richard Black BBC article is a keeper (and the quote is stellar):-

    Climate models yield confidence question

    As a policymaker, as a business leader, as a citizen, would you make decisions on the basis of these models?

    I did NOT expect to be reading THIS from the BBC around this time of year.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on December 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm said:

    Can it get any sillier?

    Egg gas finding a rotten result for free-range hens

    EGGS from caged hens produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than free range eggs, a new report has found, prompting calls for carbon footprint labelling to be used on all food products in Australia.

    A report for the Australian Egg Corporation, which represents most egg farmers, found that free range egg production’s carbon footprint in Australia was about 20 per cent higher than caged production.

    The main reason was because free range egg production uses more feed per kilogram of eggs produced than caged egg production, the report, which was half-funded by the federal government, found.

    The report also found that egg production had a lower carbon footprint than several European egg studies, mainly due to more efficient grain production in Australia.

    Read more:

    Free range hens consume more feed per kilogram of eggs produced than caged hens – duh!

  33. I hope, that come the revolution, there are enough lamppost vacancies for the fools who come up with this kind of rubbish

  34. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm said:

    It seems that the NZ Guardian (I mean Herald) now just removes your ability to comment on climate change articles if you don’t tow the pro AGW line. After having a few comments published my ability to comment has disappeared – the button to ‘ADD’ comment is non existent whilst other people are still commenting. I can still comment on other articles, just not the Jim Hopkins one:

    I knew I shouldn’t have wasted my time reading that stupid leftie tabloid journalist rag.

  35. Did you try a different IP address? I’d be interested in how they are blocking you. Cookie maybe?

    There’s plenty of sceptical comments on that thread.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on December 20, 2011 at 1:24 pm said:

    I’ve been blocked from seeing the comments (probably a good thing though).

    The comments box comes and goes but I haven’t bothered to try adding anything.

  37. Sheesh you guys are paranoid.

    I think there maybe browser or other issues.

    Try a different browser, unplug the modem to get an IP refresh, clear the cookies, but I don’t believe anyone at Das Herald is smart enough to block you.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on December 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm said:

    You’re right Andy – tried a different browser and I can see comments.

  39. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on December 20, 2011 at 3:53 pm said:

    Tried a different browser on another computer with Windows instead of Mac OS X with the same result. I can comment on other articles but not this one, even though I’ve commented already about 4 times (maybe they have a limit). I might be paranoid, but I’ve caught them altering web links a good 10 times previously in comments (very unlikely to be automated) & here we have the comments box disappearing when I start skewering the greenies. The worst part is that it looks like I’ve run away from their counterarguments dammit, at the hands of that imbecile Gandalf no less.

  40. Most likely explanation is that they have a limit of 4 comments. There are so many sceptical views that it seems unlikely that they are blocking you

  41. I have to wonder what some of you might be doing wrong. I’ve just had a quick count on the first few screens of comments on Jim’s article and noticed eight comments from me. I think there are more, but they were all published as I submitted them. They always took some hours to appear, but they don’t appear to have been interfered with in any way, nor has my ability to create new comments been restricted. I want to check that, but it’ll take until tomorrow. I’ve got more enjoyable things to do!

  42. Richard C (NZ) on December 28, 2011 at 7:40 am said:

    Abertawe yn un QPR sero

    Posted on December 27, 2011 by Steven Goddard

    A fydd abertawe yn gwneud y deg uchaf?

    Thought you’d all like to know.

  43. I think this article is worthy of the News post.

    Unified Theory of Climate
    Posted on December 29, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a new Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

  44. This idea that the Greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all has been propositioned here and elsewhere by Harry Dale Huffman (maybe not exactly as in this paper)

    This certainly would completely blow apart the CO2 AGW theory.

  45. The new idea here is comparing other planets to earth in terms of atmosphere, pressure, TOA temp, surface temp and GHG levels. The overall finding is that atmosphere mass and pressure is a big driver of climate. It certainly is sparking some debate, including a responding article contending that Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller confuse cause with effect.

  46. Congratulations to Dr David Wratt on the QSO in the New Year’s Honours list, for Services to Science

  47. val majkus on January 3, 2012 at 2:52 pm said:

    2012 Bloggie Awards being called for

    read all about it (you can nominate up to 3 blogs)

    closing date 15 January

    I know what I’m going to do


  48. Richard C (NZ) on January 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm said:

    The Year That Winter Forgot: Is It Climate Change?

    By Bryan Walsh Monday, Jan. 09, 2012

    And then there’s the less quantifiable, more lyrical value of winter — a cold, frozen, crystalline season that’s beautiful and punishing all at once. As the British poet Anne Bradstreet said, “If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant.” Climate change disrupts the rhythm of the seasons, that regular passage of time and temperature we assumed was fixed. It turns out we may be wrong, and winter as we know it could one day be a season of the past. As we keep altering the climate, who can tell what else might follow it into unplanned obsolescence.

    Read more:,8599,2104040,00.html#ixzz1jJgYzkTI

    “…..winter as we know it could one day be a season of the past” – poetic.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on February 7, 2012 at 9:44 am said:

    Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

    A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

    I wish they’d choose another planet to “geoengineer”

  50. Does Bill plan an “uninstall” option?

  51. Richard C (NZ) on February 10, 2012 at 6:28 pm said:

    Geoengineering proposals in the News back in 1933:-

    Men Who Can Change The Climate

    Posted on February 10, 2012 by Steven Goddard

  52. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on April 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm said:

    Great new article on Climate Change in the National Business Review – highly recommended:

  53. Richard C (NZ) on June 22, 2012 at 7:44 pm said:

    Climate warrior battles the sceptics

    Anna Rose believes the truth of climate change has been manipulated by vested interests.

    For 29-year-old Rose, who spent a month working on a recent TV documentary with former Liberal senator Nick Minchin, human-generated climate change is a basic truth that has been deliberately tangled by vested interests.

    “There has been a massive campaign of misinformation and confusion and doubt,” she says. “But there are three pretty simple facts. One, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere; two, humans have emitted these gases since the industrial revolution; three, since then the world has warmed.

    ”Our carbon dioxide levels are 40 per cent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution and that has led to a rise of 0.8 degree centigrade. That can seem small until you realise it is a global average. For example, Arctic temperatures have risen six degrees.”

    Rose’s other message is on rising seas. “At the moment, Australia is on track for at least a one-metre rise by 2100. We met the chief oceanographer of the US Navy and he said they are planning for at least a metre. In NSW alone, that would destroy or damage between 40,000 and 60,000 homes, 250 kilometres of highway and 1200 commercial enterprises. When you look at the risks, it would be irresponsible to ignore the science.”

    Read more:


    There you have it from “29-year-old Rose”

    Reminds me of “17-year-old Brittany”

    Kiwi schoolgirl addresses world leaders at Rio+20 summit

  54. Mike Jowsey on July 12, 2012 at 2:43 am said:

    Unmitigated alarmist drivel on TV One news last night. 1:44 second clip, using all the usual pictures of polar bears, hurricanes, twisters, cracked drought-affected ground. No actual statistical trends showing that the extreme weather events are getting worse, just the bald claim. Viewer discretion is advised – those easily enraged should first take several valium.

  55. Mike Jowsey on July 12, 2012 at 9:19 am said:

    Thanks mate – I needed that! Lol.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on July 19, 2012 at 10:07 am said:

    ‘Climategate’ email leak to remain a mystery

    He [university Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton] said he hoped the announcement would “draw a line under the stressful events of the last two and half years.”

    No Ed sorry, there’s a bit more of that to endure yet.

  57. Yes, the password for that zip file!

  58. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 11:22 am said:

    More broadly, the Climate Reality Project’s goal is to forge connections between nongovernmental organizations working on climate change issues around the globe with individuals to spread awareness, Ms. Fox said in an interview. “There are something like two million environmental N.G.O.’s around the world working on climate,” she said. “We actually believe we have the numbers — but we don’t have the mass.”

    She suggested that social media could create that mass: “we actually can find each other.”


    H/t Tom Nelson

  59. Richard C (NZ) on January 13, 2013 at 7:33 pm said:

    Reuters are spinning a tricky news story with a little help from some warmists but they’ve been forced to eat a plate of crow in doing so:-

    Warming has slowed, however, not only by comparison with 1998 but in the years since then. The new modelling from Britain’s Hadley Centre, which forecasts global average temperatures to 2017, suggests the present decade may turn out to be no hotter than the last one.

    That is something of a bombshell to the previous climate narrative of inexorable temperature rises decade by decade.

    Read more:

    “Bombshell” to Reuters, old news to sceptics.

    Note the use of the word “slowed”. Their headline is also titled ‘Slowing global warming no cause for complacency’. No warming is to be characterized as “slowing’ or “slowed” when there’s crow in the diet – it helps digestion.

    There’s a bunch of “help explain” rubbish in the rest of the article but at least the UKMO/HadCRUT revision issue and “slowed” warming is being aired in the MSM, albeit cloaked in warmist vernacular.

  60. Richard C (NZ) on January 14, 2013 at 9:49 am said:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming… so who are the ‘deniers’ now?

    By David Rose–deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    “We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.

    There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.

    Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.”

  61. Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 11:16 am said:

    Has the Met Office committed fraud?

    Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    In short, the Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist [David Rose, Mail on Sunday] who had uttered the inconvenient truth that there had been no global warming for at least 15 years.

    The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

    So I reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office, which has a specific remit to deal with frauds that involve large sums (here, tens of billions) and organized crime (here, that appreciable fraction of the academic and scientific community that has been telling similar porkies.


  62. Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 am said:

    “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on January 15, 2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    Placed a carefully crafted comment Monday in the NZ Herald online taking to task “as the world continues to get warmer”

    Checked to see if the comment was posted today (Tuesday) only to be greeted with “Debate on this article is now closed.” Forgot to to keep a copy unfortunately. I note other comments were posted today (Tuesday) but not mine.

    Had better luck at the TV3 de Freitas article:-

  64. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2013 at 1:53 pm said:

    Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung

    Von Axel Bojanowski

    Wie stark erwärmt sich unser Klima wirklich? Nasa-Forscher belegen, dass der Temperaturanstieg seit 15 Jahren eine Pause macht. Gleichzeitig gibt es Indizien dafür, dass sich das Problem verlagert: Die Umwelt könnte sich vorläufig an ganz anderer Stelle erhitzen.


    Translates to:-

    Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

    by Axel Bojanowski,

    How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.


    Doesn’t matter how you say it, there’s still some explaining to be done. This however (also Hansen, Sato and Ruedy’s line) sticks in my craw:-

    “Meteorologists interpret that 2011 and 2012 were the warmest La Niña years since records began as a sign of progressive warming.”

    Yeah right. There was only one La Niña event overlapping both 2011 and 2012 but 2012 also had a complete El Niño event. The previous 3 La Niña’s don’t show a rising trend either.

  65. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2013 at 8:49 am said:

    German media waking up? Another paper raising questions, on front page no less:-

    Major German Daily Carries Front-Page Headline: “Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting…CO2 Over-Estimated?”

    “Is carbon dioxide being over-estimated? British scientists announce: the temperature increase stopped already 15 years ago.”

  66. Richard C (NZ) on January 25, 2013 at 9:15 am said:

    Whatever happened to global warming?

    Margaret Wente

    The Globe and Mail [Canada]

    “In other words, climate change is very, very complicated. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels are just one of many factors that affect the climate. Other factors – ocean temperatures, soot, clouds, solar radiation etc. – turn out to be a lot more important than we thought and aren’t so easily captured by computer models.”

  67. Richard C (NZ) on February 3, 2013 at 9:25 am said:

    Branching out on climate

    * From: The Australian
    * February 02, 2013 12:00AM

    THE world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate.

    Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system.

    If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.

    The paper, Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapour condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, is not designed to challenge the orthodox view on climate science. But Sheil, a professor of forest ecology and conservation at Southern Cross University’s School of Environment, Science and Engineering, says he is not surprised that is how the paper has been received internationally.

    Boiled down, he says, bad science is protecting shoddy climate models.


  68. Richard C (NZ) on February 3, 2013 at 10:20 am said:

    Links to the paper and other commentary at JN, JC and New Scientist.

    Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics,–they-drive-the-planets-winds.html

  69. Richard C (NZ) on February 9, 2013 at 10:55 am said:

    Newsweek 1975 : Climate Scientists Wanted To Melt The Arctic – To Save The Planet From Bad Weather

  70. West Burton power station: EDF to sue protesters

    Climate change protesters who staged a seven day sit-in at a Nottinghamshire power station claim they are being sued for about £5m by the facility’s owners.
    A statement on the No Dash for Gas website reads: “EDF has launched a civil claim for damages against the group and associated activists for costs the company claims to have incurred, a figure it puts at £5m.

    “Should the claim succeed, several of the campaigners face losing their homes, and all could face bankruptcy or be forced to pay a percentage of their salaries to EDF for decades to come

  71. Richard C (NZ) on March 18, 2013 at 8:01 am said:

    The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

    By David Rose

    The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

    Read more:

  72. Some interesting observations on the Mail article at BH:

  73. Richard C (NZ) on March 19, 2013 at 10:20 am said:

    Discussion re the Rose article and provenance of the graph at Ed Dawkins blog here:-

  74. Richard C (NZ) on March 20, 2013 at 8:55 am said:

    Hmm…. The Carbon Brief response to Rose’s article goes straight to #1 on Google News ‘Climate Science’ while the original is relegated to #11.

    On the bright side, the graph is now displayed prominently at #1 and #11 – thank you Google and Carbon Brief.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on March 20, 2013 at 9:04 am said:

    Limp attempt to “set straight” as it turns out:-

    Strengthens the point more than anything:-

    “Hawkins’s comparison shows global temperatures are tracking the bottom of the range in which 90 per cent of the model simulations lie. In other words, global temperatures are, broadly speaking, represented by a model simulation that is cooler than about 90% of the CMIP5 model runs.

    More simply, most of the models predict warmer temperatures than we’ve seen in the past decade.”

  76. Richard C (NZ) on March 20, 2013 at 9:34 am said:

    The dimwits at Carbon Brief probably don’t realize that John Christy has taken his version of that graph (with the actual runs, not just the range) to the US Congress long ago – twice.

    First trip,

    Second trip (updated),

  77. There’s some more follow up at Bishop Hill

    BH also links to Slate which is good for a laugh if you like lots of D words thrown around

  78. Richard C (NZ) on March 20, 2013 at 11:48 am said:

    I see Plait prefers old-school CMIP3 to state-of-the-art CMIP5.

  79. That’s because the error bars on CMIP3 are wider than CMIP5 so the temps fall within range

  80. Richard C (NZ) on March 20, 2013 at 12:18 pm said:

    And the full ensemble “average” is spurious anyway for assigning uncertainty. Lucia:-

    “I still don’t know why you and RC don’t show color for each model when making your error bands so people can *see* that spread isn’t “weather”.

    I’m under the impression Gavin’s “point” is that we shouldn’t care the spread isn’t “weather” because — for some mysterious reason– we are only supposed to care whether the observations fall inside the larger-than-weather spread of all weather + structural uncertainty of forecast.

    But that would be a rather bizarre limitation since what we ought to want to know is what range of forecasts are consistent with *earth weather* not merely “does trend fall inside spread of all models in all weather”. It does — because the models with the lowest projected warming aren’t inconsistent with the data.

    It’s only the ones with the fastest projected warming that are inconsistent with the data. That is: Only a subset of models that we all anticipate will be accepted for inclusion in the ensemble to of the AR5 can be diagnosed as “wrong” in the sense that their projections of over all warming are inconsistent with observed warming. ”

    The “wrong” subset can be tossed in my view, they are utterly useless. I don’t know why anyone even considers them – let alone determines uncertainty by including them.

    “subset” – starting to sound like Glieck.

  81. Richard C (NZ) on March 30, 2013 at 9:55 am said:

    Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

    * by: Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor
    * From: The Australian
    * March 30, 2013 12:00AM

    DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

    In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

    Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

    For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

    International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming

    But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

    Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

    “The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

    Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

    The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.


    According to The Economist, “given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified.”


    A sensitive matter

    he climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away

    Mar 30th 2013 |From the print edition The Economist

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”


  82. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm said:

    Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

    Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign

    By Geoffrey Lean

    05 Apr 2013, 451 Comments

    “Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.”

    Unless of course the rising CO2 levels are primarily a natural lagged effect of solar-driven rising temperature rather than being due to fossil fuel emissions (the lessor factor by far) in which case CO2 will not “go on soaring” when temperatures fall as they inevitably will now solar input is falling.

  83. Richard C (NZ) on April 17, 2013 at 9:43 am said:

    (Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.


    A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s – when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth’s surface – made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

    The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

  84. Richard C (NZ) on April 17, 2013 at 7:40 pm said:

    The above Reuters article is propagating (or whatever the news term is for “has legs”):-

    Warming slowdown puzzles scientists

    Oslo – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

  85. Richard C (NZ) on May 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm said:

    STOP PRESS – Underwhelming Breaking News

    ‘Climate change may have little impact on tropical lizards’

    Eureka! Science News – ‎17 hours ago‎

    A new Dartmouth College study finds human-caused climate change may have little impact on many species of tropical lizards, contradicting a host of recent studies that predict their widespread extinction in a rapidly warming planet.

    “….a host of recent studies….” ????

  86. Richard C (NZ) on May 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm said:

    Lizards…..and oysters:-

    “Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned.”

    From JoNova – ‘Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for’

    ‘Want climate resistant oysters, or climate “Justice”? The ARC has millions to help. But no money for skeptics.’

    Guest Post: Dr Roberto Soria

    “I counted at least 50 winning projects with the magic words “climate change” or greenhouse gas emission in them (compared with about 10 astronomy projects, and 19 cancer research projects, for example). “Climate change” projects raked up $16 million in the Discovery category alone.”

    “There’s one that promises to study how oysters can be made resilient to climate change: here’s $285,000 coming their way”

  87. Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 11:48 am said:

    Nice little article in the herald today, with comments open:

  88. Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 11:53 am said:

    Well the comments were open until I left one, now they’re closed it seems.

  89. Andy on May 27, 2013 at 12:09 pm said:

    I wonder how long it will take the usual suspects to start huffing and puffing over this article.

  90. Magoo on May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm said:

    I have to disagree with his closing statement:

    ‘One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency.

    I will concede that.’

    We can imagine all sorts of disaster scenarios such as the sky falling on our heads, but without evidence or even a strong possibility of them actually happening, what’s the point in doing anything other than keeping an eye on the data? Shoveling truckloads of money down the dunny on the unlikely off chance of a ‘what if’ bit of unfounded paranoia is nothing more than a vast waste of money.

  91. Andy on May 27, 2013 at 12:39 pm said:

    Why I think we’re wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist

    By Professor Myles Allen

    Take the fun quiz at the end of the article too

  92. keeping an eye on the data

    You’ve spotted the key, Magoo, because that’s not being complacent. Complacency stops us from seeing what’s actually happening and is never a good idea, even when there seems to be no evidence. So Chris’ “concession” to what is simply good sense can raise a smile.

    Oh, and I noticed your remark about the Herald closing comments so I posted the article here, thanks.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm said:

    Anyone else have a problem with this Bloomberg reporting?

    ‘Globe warms at unprecedented rate, WMO report says’

    The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.

    “The decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement. “Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans.”

    Read more:

  94. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 5:57 pm said:

    Bloomberg reporting aside, Steven Goddard has 3 posts on the WMO report:

    ‘United Nations Says That Cooling Temperatures Indicate Unprecedented Warming’

    ‘Fastest Cooling Decade On Record’

    ‘WMO Believes That The World Ended In 2010’

  95. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 6:33 pm said:

    Business journalism the US and UK no better, see:

    ‘Business Journalists: Climate Change Deniers Have No Place in Our Reporting’

    ‘Quote of the day … appalling journalism promoted unsustainable “renewables”.’

  96. Richard C (NZ) on August 10, 2013 at 1:53 pm said:

    These little gems turned up news outlets lately in “Reuters” (apparently) articles on the ‘2012 State of the Climate report’ but the “Reuters” articles have all been re-edited somewhere along the publishing process (maybe tailored for each customer?) e.g. Stuff includes Renwick and Salinger not found in the others but omits the all-important Tom Karl attribution:

    [Jim Salinger in Stuff] – “Warming of surface temperatures has slowed somewhat over the last decade…..”

    Followed by the obligatory – “… the excess heat goes into warming up the deep global oceans”

    Fortunately Stuff clears the fog with what is attributed to Tom Karl elsewhere:

    “It [the report] showed a complex picture, with global temperatures actually declining by 0.05 degrees Celsius in the decade leading up to 2012.”

    From Reuters in the Sydney Morning Herald with Karl attributed and a little more precise than Salinger in Stuff:

    “However, in the decade leading up to 2012, global temperatures actually declined by 0.05 degree celcius, according to Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre”


    “The recent decrease in atmospheric temperatures has been noted by climate change sceptics who question the impact of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, on climate.”

    Followed by the obligatory:

    Other reports including NOAA’s, though, indicate the oceans have been warming up as they absorb more heat.

    Read more:

    The Rueters “However” is also to be found at CBC (Radio Canada) but curiously a different version to the Sydney Morning Herald. Instead of the obligatory heat-going-into-the-oceans there is another “However” which is not as explicit:

    “However, other changes detailed in the report paint a more complex picture:……….”

    “Ocean heat was near record high levels in the upper half-mile (.8 km) of the water, and temperatures also increased in the deep ocean.”

    Also in Today Online with “But” instead of “However”:

    “But in the decade leading up to 2012, global temperatures actually declined by 0.05°C, said Dr Thomas Karl, Director of the NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre.”

    Followed by a “However”:

    “However, other changes detailed in the report — such as [NOTHING ABOUT OCEAN HEAT] — paint a more complex picture.”

    # # #

    Getting a bit tricky for the MSM, they’re having to call on “actually”, “however” and “but” quite a lot now.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 12:21 pm said:

    ‘And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year’

    * Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    * BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    * Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

    By David Rose

    Read more:

  98. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 12:24 pm said:

    ‘Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists’

    A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

    By Hayley Dixon

  99. Bit of silence from GW pause deniers at HT on this one. I though Arctic Sea Ice was a bit of a favorite over there

  100. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm said:

    The NOAA hasn’t got the 2013 news yet, their 2012 extreme weather and climate report comes up in Google News too:

    ‘New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012′

    I like this bit:

    Arctic Sea Ice:

    * The extremely low Arctic sea ice extent in summer 2012 resulted primarily from the melting of younger, thin ice from a warmed atmosphere and ocean. This event cannot be explained by natural variability alone. Summer Arctic sea ice extent will continue to decrease in the future, and is expected to be largely absent by mid-century.

    # # #

    I look forward to their 2013 report in 2014.

  101. I expect they’ll put it down to “natural variability”, as with anything that doesn’t fit the narrative these days

  102. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm said:

    Yes, what “cannot be explained by natural variability alone” will probably be explained by natural variability…..err…..alone.

    Meanwhile over at SkS, the pause is “more accurately” the slowdown:

    “So, what about the whole current debate about global warming having “ended” or at least “slowed down” over the past decade-and-a-half? The whole issue of the warming “pause” or, more accurately, slow-down, and its practical implications and significance will be subjects of several upcoming Yale Forum postings…”

    And a Dr Chris Brierley has got the huff and resigned from the editorial board of the journal Climate because it published Akasofu’s paper “On the present halting of global warming”:

    As AW puts it “Tough Times For Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts…” and, I would add, Anthropogenic Global Warming Enthusiasts.

  103. Great move from Chris Brierley.


  104. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm said:

    [Gareth] “….no slowdown in global warming” and “… buying into the denier-promulgated myth of a hiatus, pause or slowdown in warming”

    So at SkS it’s “more accurately” the slowdown but at HT there’s no slowdown, a slowdown is “the denier-promulgated myth”.

    Wires crossed in Warmer World – and ignorance of recent peer-reviewed papers evidently.

  105. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm said:

    >’….ignorance of recent peer-reviewed papers evidently”

    Ignorance now displaced I see (well maybe):

    David Lewis September 7, 2013 at 4:27 am

    I don’t think it is useful to dispute whether there is discussion in the literature about something generally described as a “hiatus, pause or slowdown in warming”. It is not some “denier-promulgated myth”.

    Solomon wrote “the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing…”, in 2010. Hansen disputed this in 2010, saying it “is not supported by our data”, but by 2013 even Hansen is writing about “the standstill of global temperature in the past decade”. Trenberth is one of many who use the word “hiatus”, eg. in this recent NPR interview

    “Hiatus” seems to be a hot topic. A recent study used the word “hiatus” in its title. ScienceNews, and Nature magazine both published reports about it. i.e. saying it “adds to mounting evidence that cooling in the tropical Pacific is the cause of the global warming hiatus….”

    The study itself states that the fact that “the annual mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty first century” is “challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming”.

    […..reverts to HT form….]

    A poke in the eye for Gareth.

  106. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2013 at 10:53 am said:

    The Los Angeles Times spells it out:

    ‘Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot’

    “Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.”


  107. Russians Charge All Greenpeace Activists On Arctic Sunrise With Piracy

    and face up to 15 years in jail

  108. Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 9:23 am said:

    ‘It’s not as bad as we thought – but global warming is still a disaster, warn UN experts’

    * Report compiled by over 800 scientists and used 9,000 scientific studies
    * But conceded that world temperatures have barely risen in past 15 years
    * This is despite more greenhouse gases being pumped into atmosphere
    * Critics say this shows carbon dioxide isn’t as damaging as was claimed
    * Report said CO2 has reached levels unprecedented in at least 80,000 year

    By Fiona Macrae

    Read more:

    # # #

    Just a matter of picking up on the models/obs “divergence” and Fiona Macrae will be reporting the sceptic argument soon.

  109. Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 11:13 am said:

    Fox News are on to it:

    ‘UN climate change report dismisses slowdown in global warming’

    The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible.

    Yet the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows — and a landmark report released Friday by the U.N.’s climate group could not explain why the mercury has stopped rising.

    Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office, a trend current models of the world’s climate have been unable to predict. A draft of the report leaked in early September acknowledged that trend and put it bluntly: We simply can’t explain it.

    “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

    But a final version of the report released Friday morning by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strips out the failure of models and explains away the downward trend.


  110. Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm said:

    No let up from David Rose either:

    ‘Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising’

    * The Mail on Sunday first revealed global temperature pause a year ago
    * IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
    * IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
    * But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005

    Read more:

  111. Rodney Hide in NBR

    Hidesight: Zombie Greens chant false science mantra

  112. BBC coverage criticised for favouring climate change sceptics

    /face palm

  113. Richard C (NZ) on January 12, 2014 at 9:31 am said:

    [BBC] – “It was -17C (1F) in the small town of Hell, Michigan, prompting online jokes that the weather was so bad even hell had frozen over”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *