It’s just weather, it’s been here before

It’s just weather, it’s all been done before and will repeat again. Not Global Warming, not Climate Change, just normal weather. Here’s a glimpse of two Februaries, 2015 and 1934.



Climate division rankings for February 2015.

1934 divisional ranking

The rest is at Anthony Watts’ What’s Up With That.


Are The Good Times Over?

Wow, 22 degrees this morning 74 this afternoon. Looks like this pattern will stick around for awhile with no precip in sight. We’ve been in a historical wet period for the last 500 years and it looks like the good times may be over. We are so screwed.




We Didn’t Have “The Green Thing” Back Then

The   Green  Thing

Checking  out at  the store, the young cashier  suggested to the
older woman that she  should bring  her own  grocery bags because
plastic bags weren’t  good  for  the environment.

The woman   apologized and explained, “We didn’t  have  this green
thing back in my earlier  days.”

The clerk   responded, “That’s  our problem today. Your generation did
not care  enough  to save our environment for  future   generations.”

She was right  —  our  generation didn’t have the green thing in  its  day.

Back  then,  we returned milk  bottles, soda bottles and beer  bottles
to the  store. The  store sent them back to the  plant  to be washed
and sterilized and  refilled,  so  it could use the same bottles over
and over. So   they really  were recycled. But we didn’t  have the
green thing back in our   day.

We walked up  stairs, because we didn’t  have an escalator in  every
store and office  building. We walked to the grocery store  and
didn’t  climb into a 300-horsepower machine   every time we had to go
two blocks.  But she  was right.  We didn’t have the green thing in
our  day.

Back   then, we washed the baby’s  diapers because we didn’t have  the
throw-away  kind. We dried clothes on a line,   not in an energy
gobbling machine  burning up  220 volts  — wind and solar power
really did dry  our clothes   back in our early days. Kids got
hand-me-down clothes from  their brothers  or  sisters, not always
brand-new  clothing. But that  young lady is right.  We didn’t have
the  green thing back in our day.

Back then, we   had  one TV, or radio, in the house — not a  TV in
every room. And the TV had a  small  screen the size of  a
handkerchief (remember  them?), not a screen the  size  of the state
of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and  stirred  by  hand because
we didn’t have electric   machines to do everything for us. When we
packaged  a fragile  item to send in the mail, we used wadded  up old
newspapers to cushion it, not  Styrofoam or plastic bubble  wrap.
Back  then,  we didn’t fire up an engine and  burn  gasoline just to
cut the lawn. We  used a   push mower that ran on human power. We
exercised  by working  so we  didn’t need to go to a  health club to
run on  treadmills that operate  on  electricity. But she’s  right.
We  didn’t have the green thing back    then.

We drank from a fountain when we were  thirsty  instead of  using a
cup or a plastic  bottle every time  we had a drink of water.  We
refilled writing pens with  ink instead of  buying a new pen, and we
replaced the  razor  blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole  razor just because the blade got dull.  But we  didn’t have the
green thing  back  then.

Back  then, people took the streetcar  or a bus, and kids   rode their
bikes to  school or walked instead of turning  their moms  into a
24-hour taxi service. We had  one  electrical outlet in a room, not an
entire   bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And  we didn’t
need a  computerized gadget to  receive a signal beamed  from
satellites 2,000  miles  out in space in order to  find the  nearest
pizza joint.

But isn’t it   sad  the current generation laments how wasteful we old
folks were just because we didn’t have the green  thing back  then?

Please forward  this  on to another selfish  old person who needs a
lesson in conservation from a  smartass young  person.
Remember:  Don’t  make old people mad.

We don’t  like being  old in the first place, so  it doesn’t take much
to piss us off.

Forest Service Moonbat, Andy Stahl, Wants Fire Retardant Banned

I’m guessing this moron is a book-learned, ponytailed, east coast liberal that has never lived outside of the city.

We Don't Have Small Fires Out Here

More than 81,000 gallons of retardant were dropped on two of the biggest fires in the north state in the past two weeks.

That kind of firefighting strategy is coming under closer scrutiny, though, as a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Forest Service to take a closer look at the environmental effects of dropping fire retardant on wildland fires.

“The government has to begin to reassess how, where and when this is done,” said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), which sued the Forest Service over its use of chemical fire retardant.

“Retardant is toxic,” Stahl said.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy of Missoula, Mont., ruled that the Forest Service needs to complete an environmental-impact statement on the use of retardant by the end of 2011, The Associated Press reported.

The case dates back to a lawsuit filed by FSEEE in 2003, challenging the use of retardant without an environmental impact report, AP reported. The case was dismissed in 2008 after the Forest Service completed an environmental assessment.

But FSEEE filed again in 2008, claiming the environmental document was inadequate, AP said.

Jennifer Jones, a Forest Service spokeswoman, said her agency hasn’t determined whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling or complete another environmental review. Jones said she doesn’t know how much retardant is used in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. Nationwide, an average of 20 million gallons of retardant is dropped on fires annually by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and state agencies, she said.

The Forest Service’s policy is to not drop retardant within 300 feet of any body of water, Jones said. Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said Cal Fire’s retardant policy is similar to the Forest Service’s.

Berlant said that in 2009 Cal Fire dropped 5.3 million gallons of retardant statewide.

Stahl said his organization has notified Cal Fire that it intends to sue the agency, claiming the retardant kills threatened and endangered species.

Berlant said his agency has not received that notice. He said Cal Fire has studied the environmental effects of using retardant and issued what is called under the California Environmental Quality Act a “negative declaration,” which means using retardant won’t have a significant environmental impact.

Even though only 14 of the 128,000 retardant drops during the past eight years caused the death of protected fish or plants, Malloy said the assessment was still needed, AP reported.

Stahl said he didn’t know of any cases where retardant drops killed protected species in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. But hundreds of endangered steelhead were killed when retardant was dropped in a creek while firefighters were battling the Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara County this summer, Stahl said.

Jones said that using retardant to fight fires protects endangered species from having their habitat destroyed by wildfire.

Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River.

Of the 110.2 million gallons of retardant used nationwide from 2004 to 2008, about 2 million gallons — just less than 2 percent — were dropped east of the Mississippi, Jones said.

Retardant is used more in the West because fires often occur in more remote places, where there are fewer roads, Jones said.

Retardant is about 85 percent water, 10 percent fertilizer and 5 percent other ingredients, Jones said.

“Because retardant contains fertilizer it is more effective than water,” Jones said. “When the water evaporates, the retardant still slows the fire.”

But many plants in the West thrive in tough conditions where there are few nutrients. Introducing high levels of fertilizer allows invasive species to grow and push out the native plants, Stahl said.


Retardant is toxic says Stahl. Hey asshole, so is fire. Retardant and air attack is the only thing that keeps the western US from burning to the ground, and this jackass worries about killing a few fish or plants to save humans.

Stahl also says, “Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River”. And just how many forest fires start east of the Mississippi? Fucking retard.

The Greens Are Never Happy

Now the Greens have everything they’ve been waiting for. Both houses of congress are controlled by liberal democrats, and the White House has a radical  liberal President who has vowed to destroy America by insisting on “green” power, among various other things. So how could there be a problem? Seems to me, they don’t want green energy, they want no energy at all.  I think this is their plan….

What else could they want? Here’s the latest NIMBY* excuses.

*(not in my back yard)

A key part of President Obama’s energy plan — replacing fossil fuels with green alternatives — is facing increasing opposition from an unlikely source: environmentalists.

Some environmentalists, who have successfully fought a wind farm on the border of Oregon and Washington, are trying to block a massive solar plant in the Mojave desert. And now an Oregon county is considering a ban on wind power in the foothills of the blue mountains.

“We all want to be as green as we can be. But at what cost?” Richard Jolly of the Blue Mountain Alliance. “To take everything from us? This valley could be surrounded by them.”

Jolly says 400-foot wind turbines are a bird-killing eyesore. The developer argues the danger to birds is exaggerated but admits every big energy project has its downside.

“If we hold out for the perfect environmental silver bullet, if you will, it will always be 15 years down the road,” he said. “We have to make incremental progress.”

For decades, environmental groups have talked about “big oil,” painting the petroleum industry as greedy and destructive. Now similar language is being applied to renewables. Instead of eco-friendly green power, increasingly it’s “big wind” and “big solar.”

Large environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, bristle at the idea of dissension in the ranks.

“We are working very aggressively to make a planning process happen with utilities, with industry, with local groups all at the table,” said Rick Duke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Center for Market Innovation.

Obama has set a goal of getting 25 percent of the nation’s power from renewable sources by 2025. The White House contends that will create millions of jobs and has the support of business and environmental leaders.

But many local activists say we need to slow this rush to renewables or risk trading one power problem for another. Source

Maybe they were surprised they got everything they wanted and they didn’t have a plan for that.

More dissent in the Democratic camp. Oh Darn!

Democrats Protecting Gore’s Global Warming Lies

You, will not question authority

You, will not question my authority

Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the facts of global warming. He refuses to answer questions at his sermons about global warming. The mainstream media will not publish or air any opposing facts about global warming. Now, the Democrat lead Congress itself is protecting the lies spewed by Al Gore. Follow The Money!!

Washington, DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed ‘celebrity’ as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The “celebrity” witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats’ “celebrity” with an unnamed “celebrity” of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

Climate Depot has more with some updates.

H/T marinetbryant @ GCP

Speaking of lies and following the money, Steve Milloy of Green Hell Blog has found Gore lying directly to congress. Do you think the Dem controlled congress cares if another Dem lies to them? Yes, that is a rhetorical question. But read about it HERE.

!!Update!! Don’t miss part 2 of Gore lying to congress. Steve Milloy at Green Hell Blog has a lot of details.

Burning Bodies for Enviro-Friendly Heat

You just can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe you. It’s from Gore Lied.

Not even two weeks has passed since GORE LIED linked to a post from The People’s Cube regarding a satirical proposal to burn dead people as an alternative fuel:

Comrades, we all know that the dead workers and peasants of the USSA have voted many times for our socialist fraternal brothers and sisters in government. However, other than voting, these dead comrades do nothing for us. Is there not a way we can reanimate these corpses and put them to work? Perhaps feed them into one of Algore’s new zero emission clean power plants? NecroPower anyone?

Kinda funny. Until today. reports:

If you’re dead and worried about the carbon emissions created from your cremation, relax. The Swedish town of Halmstad has a solution. After an environmental review showed that Halmstad’s crematorium was pumping too much smoke into the air, the facility’s director decided to re-use heat from the cremations to warm up the crematorium’s buildings.

The plan will both eliminate the crematorium’s heating bill and allow it to save money on cooling smoke before it is released into the air.

Locals in the town of 55,000 approve of the crematorium’s system, so it should be up and running soon. If the plan is successful, the crematorium eventually wants to pipe heat from its facilities to area homes. And while some may protest Halmstad’s plan on moral grounds, I’m sure that the potential monetary savings for the town will ultimately keep them quiet.

This is so far over the top, I have nothing left to say.

%d bloggers like this: