If there really was a problem the left wouldn´t touch it.

They only do imaginary problems.

Only foolish solutions.

Give them a real problem and they flee.

2012 was just an average year at this location temperature wise. We did not experience the 128F temperature that in the past actually buckled the concrete street a few years ago. We had a long cool spring that caused late planting of gardens and crops. We had a normal snowfall in the winter time. The credibility in these reports is just not there. Go outside once in a while and look around.

Yeah,I´m sure the way they calculate this lie is the same method that banks use to claim their solvent simply by excluding toxic assets from their balance sheet.

I´ve seen worse dog days of summer in other years that were worse than last year but the warmers have to keep the lies coming to build their case against fossils.If oil drilling and refinement profits went into the national bank of liberals, this whole myth would disappear tomorrow.


It is refreshing to see owners of planet saving hybrid cars getting slapped with additional fees for not contributing enough for road construction.

The fact that the old media doesn´t question this report, and point out the discrepancies, means that they are complicit in this underhanded activity. It would be safe to assume that if the old media were to write a report like this, they would also alter the numbers to make their ideological point.

My utility bill gives the average monthly temperature for the month. I have been plotting this since 1996. The average over this time is 48.95 F. 1998 was 52.50 F and 2012 was 51.58 F.

I agree with the author, only contemporary records, not "adjusted" records should be used to get the true picture. A weather station at Ripogenus Dam, ME, was active from the 1930´s to the mid 90´s. A plot of the temperatures measured showed cooling over this period, so NOAA shut down the station. It was in the middle of the woods, so there could be no heat island effect that would allow temperature adjustments.

The mantra of "warmest year on record" is as predictable as sunrise and sunset. We have been informed that the yerar just ending has been the hottest on record every January since Clinton was in office. Even the year in which we had essentially no summer and in my Boston area back yard I had six feet of snow on the ground at one point. That was the "warmest Year on record" as well because apparently Europe had a hot summer.

At this point the conclusion is meaningless. That conclucion would require an agreed upong definition of global temperature and an agreed upon limit for natural variation and an agreed upon understanding of the time scale of variation (is 10 years of data enough to plot a trend or do weather patterns follow 50, 100 or 500 year cycles?). None of those needed definitions or limits are in place yet.

Even if all that was understood and universally accepted we cannot answer the question. The historical data sets are not only not raw data, the caretakers of these databases admitted several years ago that the raw data no longer exists. It has been lost. How convenient. All we are left with is a doctored set of numbers from a group whose very existence is based on the results that doctored data show.

Call me skeptical but would you buy a used car from a K Mart suit wearing salesman who tells you that the 1965 Plymouth Valiant he is showing you really truly only has 20,000 miles on it and that all the rust spots and dents are from a damp garage and a hailstorm?

Nice summary #1. If you are right this should spell the end of liberals, because in a few short years this country is going to be drowning in a flood of major problems.

Weather is not climate.

No. Next question.