Climate Change Mass Hysteria Grips the U.S.

May 6th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

mars-attacks
WASHINGTON (AP) In what many experts are calling one of the most serious cases of mass hysteria in modern times, the U.S. government today released its National Climate Assessment, a sobering 840 page summary of a wide variety of normal climate occurrences which are leading to physical symptoms such as adolescent psychiatric problems, great wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

The report is gripping the nation like a global warming polar vortex trapped in place by the swirling toxic vapors emitted by a swarm of possessed SUVs.

The report contains claims of U.S. floods, droughts, severe weather, and heat waves, all of which are not unprecedented compared to centuries past, but are nevertheless known to be the fault of humans.

Ronald Wobbles, the report’s lead author, was quoted as saying (I am not making this up), “We’re already seeing extreme weather and it’s happening now”. This finding stands in stark contrast to 100 years ago, when ‘we saw extreme weather that was happening then’.

Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry, were quick to pounce on the report’s findings, claiming that there is no evidence supporting either the view that U.S. climate has gotten worse, or that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth with a great new diet plan.

The report received a warm welcome from many politicians, lobbyists, government-funded scientists, insurance companies, media personalities, and Hollywood. “I can even see climate change in my back yard!” was a common refrain voiced by astute observers, presumably relying upon many decades of precise temperature measurements capturing the fraction of a degree temperature rise around their back patio on a NIST-calibrated Wal Mart thermometer.

Experts familiar with the mass hysteria outbreak have little hope that an antidote would be forthcoming any time soon. Said one psychologist who declined to be identified, “All we can hope is that the hysteria will run its course in the next several years as higher energy prices, brownouts, and blackouts set in.”


69 Responses to “Climate Change Mass Hysteria Grips the U.S.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. benpal says:

    I can confirm the imminence of a catastrophe from looking at my back yard; one day a drought, the next day a flood.
    Excellent article!

  2. Robtzu says:

    When I was a kid some days we had more snow, or less snow, in the winter than we do now. What is odd is that now the more and less days are opposite of what they used to be.

  3. Scott says:

    Global warming! Hell I am more worried about the sun shinning longer every day; has anybody noticed? If we don’t do something there won’t be any periods of dark in the day, God help us!

  4. Ron C. says:

    World political leaders say that “Climate Change is real, it is happening now.” Since climate is defined as normal, or typical weather (usually over a 30 year period), what are the changes in the climate we can observe?

    Average Temperature
    In the past, there have been periods where on balance temperatures have risen, and periods of cooling. The present climate situation is a global temperature plateau following a period of warming. It is uncertain how long the flat trend will continue, and whether it will end with warming or cooling.

    It has been at least this warm in the Medieval period, certainly warmer in the preceding Roman and Minoan periods, and those temperatures were a boon for human civilization.

    Extreme Temperatures

    The average temperature since 1900 has been increasing. However, that average increase was due to warmer shorter winters with no increase in summer temperatures. In fact, the hotter summer temperatures have dropped. The average mean yearly temperature is highly correlated to the number of days a year is above 30C (hot days), the number of days in a year the temperature is below –20C (very cold days) and the length of winter in days. All three of these are decreasing, meaning more moderated yearly climate today as compared to the period before 1950.

    What is actually, physically happening is a narrowing of the variability in temperatures with no net change in summer temperatures, except that there are fewer hotter days. This narrowing in variability is primarily due to warmer shorter winters. If this trend continues, the future of the planet is not one of warmer, harsher climate, but less variability in yearly temperatures below a summer normal that is not increasing, more tolerable winters, longer growing seasons, and lower heating bills.

    Average Precipitation

    Water vapor cycles through the atmosphere each 9 days. If water evaporates from a surface somewhere, on average it will rain out somewhere else 9 days later. Observations of monthly rainfall variability from 1940 to 2009 show a zero temporal trend in global mean precipitation, but a reduction in global land variation, meaning that wet places became drier and dry places became wetter
    Rainfall patterns are such that presently 33% of the land is considered desert, defined as places where evaporation exceeds precipitation. Satellite images show that desert areas are turning greener in recent years.
    The last time the Earth was 1.0 degree warmer, the Sahara had trees and lakes. The last time it was 2.0C warmer, 10 million years ago, there was so much rainfall, that the entire planet was forested with virtually no desert or grassland
    Extreme Weather Events
    During the recent warm decades extreme weather has not increased by any statistical measure. On shorter time scales (60-year cycles), the warm phases of AMO cycles correlate with extreme storms, but ocean circulation is not driven by air temperature or CO2. On longer time frames, Eg. comparing the Medieval warm period with the Little Ice age, it is clear that cooler periods have more extreme weather, not less.
    The long-term intense hurricane drought means that a mere “regression to the mean” will see more hurricane landfalls and considerably higher damage in the years to come. A return to the “old normal” of, for example the 1950s-, would mean both hurricane damage and storms would increase dramatically in the years to come.
    The most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme weather events. These studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme weather events.

    It is not a time to be hysterical; it’s a time to plan rationally to adapt.

    • m says:

      “In the past, there have been periods where on balance temperatures have risen, and periods of cooling.”

      “The average temperature since 1900 has been increasing.”

      Two different mechanisms of heating. One has been scientifically linked to human activity, the other hasn’t. Do you need references to said science?

      “The most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme weather events.”

      “It is not a time to be hysterical”

      Where exactly in the report, did you find hysteria? The report said this:

      “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.”

      OHHH THE HYSTERIA!!!!!!!!!!

      • Ron C. says:

        National Climate Assessment–Invitation to Hysteria:

        “There is no question our climate is changing,. It is changing at a factor of 10 times more than naturally.”

        “All areas are getting hotter,”, resulting in
        More drought and larger and more frequent wildfires in the south-west;
        Increase in heavy downpours and a greater risk of flooding in north-east, midwest and Great Plains states;
        More sea level rise and storm surges;
        Increased risk of heat stroke and heat-related deaths.
        Declining wheat and corn production;
        More sea level rise and storm surges;
        Increased risk of heat stroke and heat-related deaths;
        Declining wheat and corn production;”

        Etc. Etc.

        • m says:

          All true, no?

        • Ron C. says:

          m says;

          It’s not happening now, but it will certainly happen in the future if we don’t do something????
          Definition of hysteria

        • m says:

          I like how you have no response to the rest of the inaccuracies in your original comment.

        • Bert Walker says:

          M “Where exactly in the report, did you find hysteria?”
          Hysteria:
          1)exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people. Definitely Yes!)
          2)a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include:
          a)conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), (M tell us how you really feel)
          b)selective amnesia, (Yes, amnestic for past weather intensity, and frequency)
          c)shallow volatile emotions, (Yes exemplified by your responses)
          and
          d)overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. ( Nailed it! Definitely Yes)

          M, It seems the entire report is hysteric oriented.

  5. Threepwood says:

    Late breaking news!

    Anomaly stands at .17 C, record low tornado and hurricane activity, Great Lakes back near normal levels, arctic ice heading back towards norms..

    Not only is global warming responsible for heat, cold, flood, drought, wind, hail, earthquakes and missing planes, but now something far more terrifying: boring weather.

    999 out of 1000 newly appointed boring weather experts agree: Unless we act now, we will pass a tipping point- beyond which the climate will go into an irreversible tailspin of increasingly uninteresting weather. Humanity’s very existence could be threatened by mind numbing boredom. The time for debate, questions or answers is over, our reckless behavior has already caused many areas to witness the full brunt of mother nature’s total apathy.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Threep, do you mean boring “weather experts” or “boring weather” experts?

    • m says:

      From the report:

      “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.”

      “The relative contributions of human and natural causes
      to [increases in hurricane intensity] are still uncertain.”

      “Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.”

      …That doesn’t sound very alarming to me.

      The 2013 annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C.

      The 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C.

      Fourty years of significant decline both arctic ice and great lake ice: meh. 1 season of increased ice: see we’re back to normal! “Heading back to normal” requires more than 1 season of data.

      It helps to read.

      • m says on May 6, 2014 at 8:10 AM :
        “…….. ….. .. ….. .. …

        …That doesn’t sound very alarming to me.

        The 2013 annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C
        .
        The 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C.

        It helps to read.”

        = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

        I do not believe it could have been as cold as that – - – - less than 1 deg. C.??

        Unless you have selected one T reading from Antarctica and one T reading from The Tropical Zone somewhere, added them together and divided by two?

      • Dr. Strangelove says:

        “Fourty years of significant decline both arctic ice and great lake ice”

        What’s the baseline to measure the decline? For Arctic ice it’s 1981-2010 mean. For Great Lakes it’s 1973-1992 mean. How convenient to AGW. Global cooling in 1945-1979. The baseline is after 30 years of cooling when ice cover is at maximum. Try a baseline of 1920-1950 and you will see upward trend in ice cover. BTW the Arctic sea ice is within two sigma deviation. Consistent with random variability in statistics.

  6. dorlomin says:

    “Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry,”
    Glad Spencer is admitting that so many of his buddies are nothing but dishonest paid shills who also work with the tobacco industry.
    Even in his clunky humor he could not avoid this truth.

    • bill_c says:

      What is a scientist but a paid shill for Science?

    • Jimbo says:

      dorlomin,
      Here is a well known climate campaigner. Al Gore has been quoted in 1996 by the New York Times saying:

      “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco,”……..”I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

      Earlier in the same article the New York Times said:

      “Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee….”

      If the BBC can invest in tobacco then what is your problem?

      The BBC Pension fund, as at 31 March 2013, had investments in the following tobacco companies:
      Altria Group
      British American Tobacco
      Imperial Tobacco
      Reynolds American

    • Jimbo says:

      dorlomin, one of the founders of the wildlife and climate campaigning WWF is Dr. Anton Rupert. The now deceased Dr. Rupert made his fortune from the cigarette manufacturing company called Voorbrand, re-named Rembrandt, now consolidated into Rothmans.

      Is this sustainable dorlomin?

      Earthwatch partners with organizations across all sectors of business to improve both environmental and corporate sustainability…….
      British American Tobacco (BAT) is the world’s second-largest tobacco group,…..Royal Dutch Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies,”
      Source:http://au.earthwatch.org/corporate-partnerships/partnership-profiles

      Climate change can seem like a remote problem for our leaders, but the fact is that it’s already impacting real people, animals, and beloved places. These Faces of Climate Change are multiplying every day.”
      Source:http://www.earthday.org/faceofclimate/?gclid=CN6Xp9Px9bkCFeY82wodKnAAMA

      Should I now tell you a bit about the Union of Concerned Scientists? Do you know where they have in the past received funding from?

  7. Ed Caryl says:

    There is a very good reason us of the geriatric set tend to be skeptical. We were vaccinated by Orsen Wells.

  8. Norman says:

    I liked the Ronald Wobbles line about extreme weather.

    You have a good sense of humor. Nice to have a light moment before the oceans boil.

  9. Carson Wagan says:

    You should leave juvenile sarcastic writing to The Onion.
    They are actually good at it.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Dr Spencer can be quite funny at times and other times not so much… (It’s well worth sitting through the ‘not so much’ to get to the ‘funny’)

    • David Johnson says:

      That’s a matter of opinion!

  10. m says:

    Wow, you guys can read fast. 840 pages with referenced evidence, all in one morning.

  11. Mark Bofill says:

    When are you guys going to finally wake up and quit denying the power of the Elvis Resurrection diet? It’s so anti science.

  12. Leo Morgan says:

    Several years ago I heard the claim that ‘in any normal decade, we will get three years of drought, two years of flood, and five years of ordinary weather.’
    It was presented as an uncontentious factoid, and I internalised it as such.
    This particular claim means that I’m unalarmed by most vagaries of weather and climate both. It’s what we should expect to see. Changing the amount of CO2 in the air might at best merely (slightly) change the frequency of what we’re going to get anyway.
    Still- I might be wrong. Have you or any of your readers heard of that claim? If so, do you know it’s source and it’s accuracy?
    If not, how would I go about checking what the real facts are? (I’m reluctant to do the work myself since I fear I’d get it wrong. I’d prefer to be referred to where someone else has already done the work. But if (hard to believe) it hasn’t been done before I’m willing to do it despite that reluctance.)

    • TonyM says:

      Leo, in those days they didn’t define rustling tree leaves as climate change; keep up with the times!

  13. Norm Kalmanovitch says:

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” Richard Feynman 1966.
    Please note that it is “experts” and not “scientists” who are claiming that human caused global warming aka “climate change is responsible for untold devastation when all five global temperature datasets show that the world has actually been cooling since 2002 in spite of global CO2 emissions now being at their highest level in human history!

    “In what many “experts” are calling one of the most serious cases of mass hysteria in modern times, the U.S. government today released its National Climate Assessment, a sobering 840 page summary of a wide variety of normal climate occurrences which are leading to physical symptoms such as adolescent psychiatric problems, great wailing, and gnashing of teeth.”

  14. David A says:

    Dr Spencer, do you recieve any compensation as a board member of the George C Marshall Institute?

    http://marshall.org/board-members/

    • Roy Spencer says:

      None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The couple of times I attended board meetings in DC, they paid my airfare, which does me no good because I have to take vacation time to do it. It’s basically a volunteer position. And after working for NASA, I sure don’t want any more trips to DC anyway.

    • Jimbo says:

      David A,
      Does Dr. James Hansen receive any compensation for his activism?

      • Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009

      • FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife
      (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008

      • ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007

      • Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006

      • Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009……..

      The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:

      Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club “No Coal” campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT………….

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

      • JohnKl says:

        Jimbo!

        Thank you for the data and link. No one works without expectation of reward especially when it comes to providing scientific data and/or interpreting it. No funding source on this planet exists void of self interest and bias. The rather infantile if not idiotic belief that IPCC members, experts, academic professionals or anyone else lives free of such pressure can only derive from a mind largely lacking in contact with fellow humans or honest evaluation of his fellow man.

        Thanks again and have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          To moderator. I apologize if my language seems strong and I certainly don’t wish to impugn any individual. Nevertheless, the bizarre belief that government funded experts, academics etc. lack bias or pressure to alter data to suit the biases of others flies in the face of objective fact and most of human history.

          Thanks and have a great day!

      • John K says:

        Thanks Jimbo for the information and link. Anyone’s funding source can be questioned as to possible bias and assertions made as to it’s supposed impact on the judgement and credibility of the receiver. As every mere mortal including politicians, academics, experts, etc. currently walking the face of the earth can make errors of various kinds the best mode of reasoned debate should involve the supposed facts not vague inferences as to intention due to funding sources. All merely human institutions and merely human theories/speculation may be subject to error including moral error. It seems to me, the whole purpose of the scientific method should be to separate the theoretical wheat from the chaff subject in to logical, empirical observation.

        Have a great day!

        • John K says:

          Dear moderator,

          Please allow me to know what statement proves to be immoderate.

          Have a great day!

    • TonyM says:

      As I am not a US resident I am out of my depth in commenting but make some observations.

      US Pres Obama, brilliant as he is, seems to have a religious passion and fervour in promoting CAGW despite having said that science would again take its rightful place. Perhaps he should understand what orthodox science means and address whether what he says and promotes complies.

      As for beneficiaries, I expect any expert to benefit. But, it seems to me that the warmistas like Gore et al and even companies like Shell have far more to gain, and have gained far more, than any skeptic – individual or organization.

      For example Solyndra was a smashing success; I seem to remember a lot of solar cells being smashed as Gore walked away with millions. But as I said, I don’t know the US politics at all.

      Perhaps you could enlighten us.

  15. Sean says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I think your use of the “War of the Worlds” headlines was misleading. It made the paper because people believed what they heard on the radio. This administration’s credibility is shot and the louder Chicken Little shouts, the less seriously it’s taken. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/obama-looks-to-weathermen-to-make-case-on-climate-change.html
    People in the upper Midwest around the Great Lakes are likely having a particularly hearty chuckle.

  16. Don B says:

    Column by Delingpole:

    ” The bad news – inevitably – is that the news is very bad: more heat, more extreme weather, more drought, everything worse than ever before.

    “Fortunately, there’s some good news too: you don’t need to believe a word because, just like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports, this document is much more a political one than a scientific one.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/06/Obama-s-Last-Shot-Climate-Change-And-Why-It-s-Doomed-To-Fail

  17. ßri says:

    Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    When the sign on the door where you work says Change you WILL find change.
    They seem to have left out the “climate”.
    Who is the shill?

    ßri

  18. mpcraig says:

    “We find no evidence that it’s a high priority for Americans,” Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said in an interview. “They are much more concerned about more proximate issues such as jobs and the economy.”

    He was probably referring to this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

    And yet for Obama, it’s a top priority. If I was an American, I’d be pretty miffed.

    • Mark Bofill says:

      We’re not permitted to be miffed. It’d be racist. Besides which, he’d sic the IRS on us.
      On the upside, I don’t think he’d drone us… unless he was completely ignorant of the circumstances of the accident and could guarantee that he’d get to the bottom of it and that the perpetrators would be brought to justice.
      Did that sound bitter?

  19. mpcraig says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    BTW you got answers to your top ten skeptic questions: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

    I’m betting that it’s extremely unlikely you’ll find them satisfying.

  20. Ball4 says:

    Dr. Spencer – Very good, thx. “…that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth…” reminds me of Johnny Carson telling us life is just not fair. If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and not the impersonators.

  21. BillB says:

    Experts are saying that because of Climate Disruption (nee Climate Change) this years unusual weather will be more unusual than usual.

  22. richard says:

    The three worst hit countries by extreme weather, over the last 30 years, have all nearly doubled their populations within this time frame.

    Hondura, Burma and Haiti.

    Strange that, i thought extreme weather led to a decline in population and migration.

  23. richard says:

    I think now is the time our great leaders show us the way and live their lives like Ghandi.

    We could at the least admire them for their beliefs. I might be even tempted to listen to them instead of laughing at them.

    • Threepwood says:

      A good point, I had a hippy friend who lived off the grid, showered under a waterfall- really, grew his own food and never once admonished me for my ‘normal’ lifestyle (he paid for gas when I had to give him a ride a couple of times) He simply lived the way he thought was right, that impressed people and made them see his point of view even if they didn’t agree.

      For some reason most ‘environmentalists’ are the exact opposite

  24. richard says:

    “The report received a warm welcome from many politicians, lobbyists, government-funded scientists, insurance companies, media personalities, and Hollywood”

    but no poor people!!

  25. TM Willemse says:

    Dear Puny Humans,
    Cyclical global climate change is an inexorable (literally “that which cannot be removed by prayer”) juggernaut. Ice ages are end-of-life events. Yet, you want to spend billions of dollars “mitigating” the inevitable. Good luck with that.

  26. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    Thanks God the grip is not so effective. There seems to be a lot of sensible people here.

  27. RH says:

    Many of my friends and coworkers have a hard time accepting my “denialism”. In their minds, there would need to be a huge and unlikely conspiracy for “everyone” to be wrong. Why can’t I accept what, for them, is common sense? For an example of how wrong science can become conventional wisdom: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mod=trending_now_1

    The article isn’t about global warming, but the similarities are striking.

    • Bryan says:

      Thanks for posting that. A few thoughts.

      1) Nutrition Science seems more tractable than climate science in general, since in nutrition science systematic study can be done on individuals, groups, and even entire populations, while in climate science, as has been pointed out, “There is only one earth.” Yet massive efforts in studying nutrition still resulted in a totally screwed up result.

      2) That screwed up result has been incredibly durable. The inertia that sets in when government science is involved is nothing short of amazing. For example, it has been known for decades that ratios of essential fatty acids are truly important, and there is no government requirement to include that information on food labels, but with far less evidence of importance, there is the requirement to provide details of how much saturated fat is present, and the % of “daily value”. Hopefully screwed up climate science conclusions will not prove as durable.

      3) Could there be a connection between the screwed up nutrition results and climate science conclusions? Low saturated fat means less red meat and dairy, which decreasing consumption of the relatively less “sustainable” sources of food. It would be interesting to look at those who promoted the anti saturated fat movement strongly at the beginning, to see if they leaned toward the alarmist view of overpopulation, resource depletion, and so on.

  28. David L. Hagen says:

    Fearful changes!
    I experienced leaving Delhi with temperatures of 105F in the shade (you don’t have to stay in the shade!) and arriving in Minneapolis with temperatures at -19F. Now how large was that increase in extreme temperature?
    Lets see 0.4C from 1920 to 1960, and 0.6 C from 1960 to 2000. So 0.2 C of anthropogenic warming?
    Compared to 68C travel swing?
    Now that is a fearful 0.3% change!
    Is it possible to adapt to that?
    Do I need to add a cap or removing a scarf?
    Changing to a slightly thinner set of socks will probably do!

    That is indeed a “fearful” challenge!

    Now that thats taken care of, could we start to address the 2 trillion bbl of replacement oil needed over the next 40 years – worth $200 trillion! Or do we have to “mitigate” by shutting down our economies?

  29. Data does not support what is in the report. Data does not lie, the IPCC does lie. It is that simple.

  30. 4TimesAYear says:

    I don’t know as “mass climate hysteria” is gripping the nation so much as this administration is doing its best to create it.

  31. Dan Murray says:

    With this report the white house may now be referred to as ” the home of the whopper”

  32. Bohdan Burban says:

    It may be worth developing a concerted effort to alert the public to the insidious dangers of the poisoning effects of carbon by demanding that our political representatives in the Federal legislature adopt the labeling of all food products with their total carbon content, with a view to ultimately severely curtailing its use, as per tobacco.

  33. John K says:

    Hi Roy,

    This morning while watching a news show text appeared at the bottom of the screen during a presentation about the current administrations warnings about CLIMATE CHANGE. It asserted that if we fail to take action temperatures could rise ANOTHER 2 to 4 degrees in the next few decades. This seemed very peculiar if in fact such a claim came from climate scientists since satellite data provides the only statistically meaningful potential measurement of global temperatures. This data only exists since 1979 when such satellites first became available and I am currently unaware of sustained temperature increases over even 1 degree centigrade or average temps of over .5 degrees. Have you come across any data of this kind!

    Thank you and have a great day!

  34. Rihard garnache says:

    Bohdan Burban says:

    May 6, 2014 at 6:10 PM

    I love it!

  35. Jbird says:

    Most of the hysteria is in the news media I think, and was planned by our government. Unfortunately for the government, quite a few people at this point have grown weary of listening to the message and have stopped giving it much attention.

  36. jan freed says:

    O, behave! Dr. Spencer CEO, Shill Oil.