More From Suyts Victory Lap!!!!! Lack Of Global Warming Documented!!!!


data and links here.

One of the many things I’m proud of from this blog is that I was one of the few climate bloggers who refused to allow the alarmists to arbitrarily pick their start date on the temperature data sets.  Even today we see many blogs who still let the alarmists dictate and define the temperature trends. 

The above graph is from one of the satellite derived temperature data sets (RSS).  I was one of the first to note the negative decadal trend from RSS …… Today, it’s much more than a decade.  15 full years of a declining trend in the temp data.  …… well, that’s just from this century.  It’s been negative since June of 1997, creeping up on 20 years with no warming noted. 

I believe it was bloggers like me which caused the change of terms from global warming to climate change.  Open-mouthed smile 

There is, of course, much more to say about this subject, such as to idiocy of trying to measure the earth’s temperature.  It’s an incredibly facile notion. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to More From Suyts Victory Lap!!!!! Lack Of Global Warming Documented!!!!

  1. TedG says:

    I believe 100% it was bloggers like James that caused the change of terms from global warming to climate change. Thanks for persevering!

  2. Latitude says:

    Hey goofy!….your thermometer post and graph… the subject of a article featured on WUWT right now……see footnote #2

    • suyts says:

      Heh! Thanks Lat! That’s a perfect touch to a “victory lap” post! Of course, I’ll have a post on the graph sometime in the future. I think it’s fantastic how that graph has worked its way through the climate wars! Now Nat. Review is using the same notion! Heh!

  3. Lars P. says:

    The comeback of the incandescent bulb and why huge forced transition are wrong:

  4. DirkH says:

    Now look at this.
    Dawkins (2010):
    ““I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.”

    He is BTW misinformed. Globally, Christianity is on the rise thanks to Africa and Asia.

  5. So Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be President. I was born in England to American parents. My dad was on active duty and stationed in England at the time. I had dual citizenship until I had to declare my US citizenship to enter a Naval officer program. My naturalization paper says I’m a citizen from birth–which is pretty close to being natural-born–but it isn’t exactly. I’ve read some accounts that said I am eligible to be President and others that said I’m not eligible (not that I’d ever want to be). When McCain ran, there seemed to be no doubt about his eligibility. The problem is that the courts and the Supreme Court in particular haven’t ruled on the matter. Maybe someday we’ll find out if derivative citizens are natural-born and eligible to be President.


    • leftinflagstaff says:

      Maybe time to focus on natural-born ‘American’, not citizen. I’d rather have someone who was born on Jupiter, but loves America, than someone born on the White House steps on July 4th, who hates it.

    • Latitude says:

      Jim, the way it stands right now…you are eligible

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Jim! I was born in France to American citizens, and also had dual citizenship until I signed up for Selective Service. Back a few years I needed a new passport to go to Mexico to visit family and was told by the State Department that I was not a US citizen. I was told that I needed an obscure form that virtually nobody has ever heard of, or I would be a man without a country. As it happens my parents had read about this form somewhere while still in France, and as soon as we were stateside again, we traveled to Atlanta to procure this document. It is Form AA-311301 from the DOJ, and the State Department would only accept an original copy, which I keep in my gun safe.

    • suyts says:

      Jim, I wrote a post on this a while back …… (the birthers were irritating me). It is true, the SCOTUS has never ruled on this particular issue. That’s because they don’t have to. While the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous, the subsequent laws passed and court rulings regarding what is and isn’t a natural born citizen are not ambiguous. Indeed, there is a 1790 law on the books which makes clear that any child from any man which is a US citizen is themselves as US citizen. The only question today would be if the law would be strictrly read as only conferring this to men and not women. Good luck with that!

      Any child born of a US citizen is a natural born US citizen. I’ll have to dig up the post at some point, it seems.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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