Dramatic Climate Change Demonstrated By Last 40 Years Of North Hemisphere Snow Extent!!!!!!!

Yep!  According to the lunatics, our world is getting warmer!  Somehow, they’ve managed to convince people that warmer is bad, rather than good, which it would be good, if it were actually happening.  A warming world is not happening. 

If the entire globe was warming, then, this would be impossible ….



Any believer in global warming is resolute to be ignorant of facts and data. 

The various stated average temperatures of the earth is about 55 deg F.  The natural state of the earth would tend to melt snow.  A warmer earth would tend to melt more snow.  Yet, we actually have more persistent snow on the ground now, than we did over the course of the last 40 years. 

The misanthropic sadists choose to disregard such information.  

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Dramatic Climate Change Demonstrated By Last 40 Years Of North Hemisphere Snow Extent!!!!!!!

  1. gator69 says:

    You are only looking at snow extent, and not thickness. 😉

  2. HankH says:

    You’re overlooking the very special and unique duality of global warming theory. It holds that global warming will decrease snow (snow will become a thing of the past) and it increases snow too (according to recent studies that attempt to explain why snow has not become a thing of the past).

    So there you have it… a theory which cannot be proven wrong because everything, irrespective of its sign or trend proves the theory.

    • HankH says:

      It just occurred to me that if global warming decreases snow and increases it then it would balance out to where your graph, which depicts no change in snow actually proves global warming.

      I hope you know I’m kidding 😉

    • suyts says:

      Perfectly logical!!!!

      • HankH says:

        Hello Stefan, do you have a journal in mind that you would like to publish in or do you want me to review your work for another purpose? The reason why I ask is because each journal has it’s own rules about reviewers (how they are selected, submission requirements, and the review process in general). On the other hand, if your intention is to publish as an op-editorial then you don’t need to go through a peer review process as op-editorials are just that – opinion journalism.

      • Hank, here is the story: on Facebook I have being told many times ”yes, your post is damaging to the Warmist, but is only your opinion, we have thousands of peer reviewed papers”
        ”Peer reviewed” is giving them credentials for lies – Well what’s a peer? he is not a man with three testicles, he is always there to do censorship, so that somebody doesn’t snick something unfavorable for the Warmist. b] I wanted to publish something in Australian science magazine – when i saw that the editor is a character in ABC science show regularly lying about the phony global warming = he wouldn’t publish my work.

        In other words check -mat… So: when I have 2-3 posts ”reviewed by peers” -> #1: can silence them when bragging that they have reviewed papers but not me #2: hopefully other skeptics will pick up the trend and we flood with ”peer reviewed papers”. #3: their weapon using ”peer reviewed”’ rusts and disappears. ACTUALLY: because in their peer reviewed papers is no glasnost allowed – will become inferior, yes inferior. So-far they are wining with their ”peer reviewing” BUT: we can turn the table and trend against them, completely!

        So, mate / peer, lets start the trend and disarm the Warmist Organized Crime (WOC)! I can literally say to any science magazine AND on Facebook: ”my 2-3 posts have being ”peer reviewed” Hank was the peer; Hank is more honest than any of your bloody ”PAL REVIEWERS” !!! Other skeptics should be encouraged to copy cat us

      • HankH says:

        Stephan, I surmise you want to publish in ABC science. Would you tell me what journal is ABC science? I need to look at their publishing requirements.

        • Hi Hank, ABC TV is same as American ABC = the man that spread propaganda about the phony global warming is editor of a ”science magazine” he wouldn’t let the truth in, because IF people know the truth, he would end up in jail; so, brick wall.

          In the rest of the comment I explained, why I need couple of post to be ”peer reviewed” -probably you didn’t read the whole comment…
          ”peer reviewed” means just that – even if is not published, is still peer reviewed; that’s important. If other skeptics get ”peer reviewed” papers – if magazines don’t print them => we can expose those magazine as ”bias”. They care about their reputations!!! I can pay $50 ad in newspaper and inform the public that ”science magazines are bias / misleading, if they don’t print both sides of the story, don’t buy them public!!!
          Plus: if I had 2-3 ”peer reviewed” posts; they can’t say: – ”our peer reviewed papers are more correct than yours, because your work is not peer reviewed” if it is.
          Well, it was a very good idea, but bad communication…

        • HankH says:

          Thank you for explaining, Stefan. I tend to be a bit literal as I do publish my work in peer reviewed leading journals using IRB (institutional review board) approvals and journal format requirements and, of course, sound scientific methods and models. Thus, when you said “peer reviewed” my mind went instantly to thinking of all those things and I did indeed miss your point.

          I’ll give your article another read (I read it earlier when you linked to it) but I was looking at wording and structure because that’s important for journal submissions. I’ll take another look at it from an opinion editorial (op-ed) perspective and offer my thoughts privately.

          How would your prefer that we dialog? I have special e-mail addresses I use for project collaboration (different from the one James has). They are designed to be used for one project only. That way any e-mails received will go directly to a project folder that helps me keep my e-mails and projects organized and focused (I have several projects going at one time). I’ll be happy to provide a project e-mail address to James so he can forward it to you or you may provide James with your e-mail address and he can send it to me and I’ll reach out to you.

          All my best,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s