Global Temperature Trend Update: June 2011

|

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through June, 2011.

global temp trend

Global temperatures continue to rise

Global Temperature Report: June 2011

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

June temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.38 C (about 0.68 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.25 C (about 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Tropics: +0.24 C (about 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

May temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.13 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.12 C above 30-year average

Tropics: -0.04 C below 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Go here to see the global temperature data by month.

NEXT: The College Scam

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When do we commence with teh running around & screaming?

    1. ahh.. that’s what H&R libtoids do every day

  2. Lemme guess, John Christy and Roy Spencer received funding from Koch Industries?

    1. Goddamnit, Roy Spencer is apparently a IDer.

      Fuck, you dodge the Kochtopus but you end up in the Beheopus.

      1. And wouldn’t you know it? Bill Gates funds the Discovery Institute.

        That’s it. I’m buying a Mac.

      2. Spencer admitting he doesn’t understand evolution is pretty disappointing.

        http://www.ideasinactiontv.com…..ution.html

        There are a variety of ideas that try to blend evolution and intelligent design, the most unified one being “pantheism” that sees God and nature as One. This view, which has been held by many peoples throughout recorded history, has also been advanced here at TCS. But more commonly, people subscribe to the notion that a Creator “got things started,” and then evolution “took over.”

        The problem I have with this is that it grants far too much significance to macroevolution, since it has virtually no observational evidence to support it. One wonders: Why do so many people defend it so fervently?

        Ugh.

        1. Let me be the first to say that using Spencer’s support for ID against his research is just plain ole argumentum ad hominem, yet his statements about evolutionary science don’t speak highly of his understanding of one of the best supported theories ever produced.

          1. Yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about that.

            Spencer had the best point from the Climate Skeptics conference-that we don’t fully understand how and why the MWP and the Little Ice Age occurred, just that it did and the extreme conditions were worse than anything we are experiencing now- thus why is this current warming period anthropogenic when the last one clearly was not.

            This is a pretty solid point, and the “Ben Wolf” dude who was in the comments said it was “solar activity and Volcanoes” which may be true, but doesn’t exclude our current climate change from being a result of the same thing.

            But I agree that argumentum ad hominem is a dumb argument to make.

            1. I agree that argumentum ad hominem is a dumb argument to make

              Are you trying to put the internet out of business?

              1. Are you trying to put Balloon Juice outta business?

                1. then where would joe from lowell go?

                2. Achtung Coma Baby|7.7.11 @ 2:05PM|#
                  Are you trying to put Balloon Juice outta business?

                  I went there and read a few comments. They are nearly indistinguishable from those found here.

            2. But I agree that argumentum ad hominem is a dumb argument to make.

              It is, certainly, dumb to worry about his opinion in a field he has no expertise. Those who point to the problems with his work in the field of climate science are closer to the mark, but that is still not fair as (with the help of others) Christy and Spencer have cleared up the errors in the satellite data.

              I wouldn’t put too much stock in Spencer’s ability to interpret the meaning of his data. But thee is nothing to indicate the data aren’t credible.

            3. oooh, my ears were burning.

              The thing is, we can be pretty certain the sun isn’t causing the warming over the last sixty or so years, because solar activity has been flat. Ronald posted a few weeks ago about three studies from solar physicists projecting a Grand Minimum, after just emerging from the strongest minimum since the Maunder in the 19th century.

              We can also be fairly certain volcanism isn’t driving climate now, one because the ash and particulate matter they send into the atmosphere woould create cooling, and two because during the LIA we had the largest volcanic explosion since the Second Century A.D. at Tambora. Wikipedia has a good summary of the volcanic eruption index if anyone is interested.

              1. I read a theory about a year ago that a solar minimum would lead to increased cosmic rays making it to earth, which could have some climactic effect (too lazy to look up increase temps or decrease them).

              2. The thing is, we can be pretty certain the sun isn’t causing the warming over the last sixty or so years, because solar activity has been flat.

                Actually it’s been rising, albiet slightly. It’s also been higher for the last 60 years than the previous 1,200. Why is it that they postulate that the oceans were storing the heat over the previous decade but not in the time period before 1980?

            1. Same team Barry, no need to tell us.

          2. Yes, and the relevant question is why reason keeps going back to him for information on this topic when there are so many more less controversial figures available.

            1. So Tony, do you disagree with the data that is being compiled by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer?

              Or do you disagree with their conclusions?

              1. I disagree with the cherry picking of scientists.

                1. How is reporting data “cherry picking scientists?”

                  1. With the proviso that these data contradict the majority-denier contingent here (not that they care), I just don’t understand why Bailey can’t just get his information from credible sources, of which there are plenty, instead of Spencer and Christy who had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the mainstream opinion.

                    1. With the proviso that these data contradict the majority-denier contingent here

                      They do? How?

                      I just don’t understand why Bailey can’t just get his information from credible sources

                      How is this data not credible?

                      Spencer and Christy who had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the mainstream opinion.

                      Spencer maintains an opinion that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, mainly because he believes that we have had other warming and cooling periods in the recent past (MWP, Little Ice Age) that clearly could not have been anthropogenic. He also made a great point that we don’t fully understand WHY the MWP and LIA happened, which would lend credence to the reality that we don’t fully understand why the current warking is happening.

                    2. Oh, I forgot, the line is no longer that GW isn’t happening, just that humans aren’t responsible. The goalposts move at just about the pace they do in the Intelligent Design movement. Where are we there? Still at bacterial flagella or have they got the memo on that one yet?

                      So that raises the very good question, why rely on an IDer for facts about anything?

                      Anyway, blathering about the MWP and LIA is enough to discredit someone claiming to be a climatologist. The IPCC, a real authority, puts it this way: “[C]urrent evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame.”

                    3. Oh, I forgot, the line is no longer that GW isn’t happening, just that humans aren’t responsible.

                      No stupid. It’s you idiots who screamed “GLOBAL WARMING ELEVNETY!!!11!! PANIC!!!” and the rest of said “uh, climate change is a constant throughout the history of this planet, what makes this one so unusual?”. Then the alarmist side made up data and ignored conflicting data to support their point (hockey stick, etc.) that this particular round of climate change was GLOBALLY THREATENING AND WE ALL MUST STOP EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW UNTIL THIS IS FIXED!!!

                      why rely on an IDer for facts about anything?

                      When it comes to Satellite data, I’m ok with relying on Spencer because he’s received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his global temperature monitoring work with satellites. It’s unfortunate that he’s also an ID’er, but irrelevant to this subject.

                      The IPCC, a real authority, puts it this way: “[C]urrent evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame.”

                      The IPCC is not the only authority on paleoclimate issues. Wallace Smith Broecker, the Newberry Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and a scientist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says that the MWP and LIA are in fact a global phenomenon.

                      http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu…..ecker.html

                    4. There’s kind of a vicious cycle of hysteria if you ask me. So-called alarmists wouldn’t need to be so panicky if there seemed a remote possibility of meaningful policy change on the horizon–change made impossible in large part by the amount of money and power behind the denier movement.

                      And that’s an interesting theory on the part of Dr. Broecker, but it’s irrelevant to the likelihood that we’d actually be in a cooling period without the warming all causes of which have been ruled out except human activity.

                    5. There’s kind of a vicious cycle of hysteria if you ask me.

                      Yeah, like the 10:10 “No Pressure” murder fantasy video, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

                      It’s only hysterical when the other side does it, right Tony?

                      So-called alarmists wouldn’t need to be so panicky if there seemed a remote possibility of meaningful policy change on the horizon–change made impossible in large part by the amount of money and power behind the denier movement.

                      I happen to believe that we already have a global crisis that is being ignored -malaria- and if 1% of the energy devoted to global warming was spent on developing more effective uses of DDT and other insect reducing technology we would actually have something to show for it instead of Al Gore’s Nobel prize.

                      all causes of which have been ruled out except human activity.

                      Citation please? Again, the point about the MWP and the LIA was that we don’t even KNOW why that happened specifically. We have theories and ideas, but it happened pretty freaking fast and there is far from a consensus on how this occurred. So if we don’t know how this happened in the past, over a much much longer time period than our current GW scenario, how can we possibly argue that this particular round of climate change is primarily anthropogenic?

                    6. The difference is we do KNOW what specifically happened to cause current warming. Outliers notwithstanding the consensus is that the MWP and LIA were not global events, and that human-caused greenhouse gas buildup is causing current warming. That’s the best theory we have now, and you have no reason to reject it absent a political agenda.

                    7. The difference is we do KNOW what specifically happened to cause current warming.

                      Untrue blanket statement. We don’t KNOW specifically what happened to cause this recent warming trend, and not only that we don’t even know if it’s really even a trend considering the fact that we have had accurate troposphere data for only a limited time. The MWP and LIA took place over hundreds of years, not a few decades, and the temperature swing was more drastic than our current one.

                      Outliers notwithstanding the consensus is that the MWP and LIA were not global events

                      Wrong again. There are over 980 scientists who think it was global.

                      http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php (See references for scientists involved).

                      human-caused greenhouse gas buildup is causing current warming.

                      How much, when did it start, does it have more effect than solar activity or volcanic activity, are all unanswered questions that should prevent anyone from saying the majority of the current warming trend is anthropogenic.

                      That’s the best theory we have now, and you have no reason to reject it absent a political agenda.

                      Wrong on both. It’s A theory -not “the best”- and hardly one devoid of political motivations.

                    8. Didn’t have to do much Googling to find that that website belongs to an organization that has received more than $100,000 from ExxonMobil. Now isn’t it about time that you addressed the grown-up science on this matter?

                    9. Argumentum ad hominem Tony.

                      Show me the studies that disprove the 983 scientists who agree that the MWP and the LIA were global phenomenons.

                    10. Also, fuck you for the comment about addressing the “grown-up science”. You haven’t produced a single link or study to support a single one of your claims and I’ve given you several, all of which you’ve ignored or tried to argue ad hominem.

                      You are a terrible debater.

                    11. I just don’t understand why Bailey can’t just get his information from credible sources, of which there are plenty, instead of Spencer and Christy who had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the mainstream opinion.

                      So to recap:
                      The data Spencer and Christy produce is credible and accurate…yet Spencer and Christy are not credible.

                      Your reasoning is as clear as mud.

                      In other news Mann’s 2008 study that was supposed to prove that his multiproxy temperature studies did not need tree ring data to prove the hockey stick actually turns out that if you remove the tree ring data that a strong global MWP show up clear as day.

                      http://climateaudit.org/2011/0…..sediments/

                      Graph here:

                      http://climateaudit.files.word…..olored.png

                      It is the green line to the left of the gray line.

          3. one of the best supported theories ever produced.

            I think almost every theory in physics is better supported. What with the ability to run multiple tests and all.

            1. I think almost every theory in physics is better supported. What with the ability to run multiple tests and all.

              Sure…as long as you ignore all the string theory variants…and since those are infinite, the “almost every” becomes problematic.*

              *I actually agree with your point.

              1. Nah, even with the infinite string theory, I am right.

                Its the whole order of ifinites thing (I forget the mathematical term). So string theories are like the natural numbers, which are infinite in size, but the real world physics stuff is like the real numbers, which is a couple of orders of infinite bigger.

                1. robc,

                  That’s just not true at all. The string theories are actually infinite. The “real world” physical theories that are “better supported” than evolution are very much a finite set (not even that large, really).

            2. I think almost every theory in physics is better supported. What with the ability to run multiple tests and all.

              Depends on if you mean natural selection or the origin of species through natural selection.

              Natural selection is pretty damn easy to run multiple tests on..you can do it on petri dishes or with a dog kennel or in the garden with peas.

              Creating a new species through natural selection…well that is a bit harder…and may take a million years or so of lab time.

              Though I do recommend reading the “Beak of the Finch”. Which documents the state of the art in at least observational science in the study of how species diverge.

          4. I agree with this.

  3. Shameless plug: I wrote a program to make charts of the UAH data. It has polynomial and FFT curve fitting:

    http://www.heurtley.com/richard/gtchart/

    1. I won’t be impressed until you write your own fourier transform. Did you just filter high frequency noise using a cutoff? did the low-frequency trends appear to have real significance or were they just numbers?

      1. PS, I didn’t mean to come off as such a hater. This is some good work, I’ve been meaning to do this myself, but just didn’t have the time, and I hate FFT libraries. Would have had to do it in mathematica or something.

      2. PS, I didn’t mean to come off as such a hater.

        I read it as teasing humor, and not hate.

        Did you just filter high frequency noise using a cutoff?

        I wonder how much distortion is produced by treating surfaces as equivalent no matter the topography. If it is +0.40 in the huge normative even swathe of surface in the South Pacific, and -0.15 in the crannied lands of the US South East, do these data points give you the same amount of useful data on a per kilometer basis? A quick glance at the procedure (there could be something I missed in other words, but it looks like it is only a binary calculation of surface versus sea level) tells me you would get a different set of values if you applied a normalized vector to the topography of each unit. What that would add or subtract in terms of the usefulness of the data, I make no assumptions.

      3. I admit the FFT filtering is half-assed. I properly run the input data through a Hann window before the FFT but then rudely chop off the coefficients for the inverse FFT. I would have taken it farther except that AFAICT the FFT coefficients had no value at all. The input signal seems to be pure noise.

  4. Why the need for “preliminary” and “revised” numbers? If they can’t get them correct the first time, why do they release them, only to dial the numbers back closer to the average once they are “revised?”

    This is why I put very little stock in the climate scientific community. They constantly release sensational data for shock value, yet meekly put out revised numbers that completely refute the bunk they hyped in the first place.

    If these people were in a legitimate scientific field that wasn’t almost solely funded by government grants, they’d be pilloried by their colleagues.

    1. For the same reason we need “preliminary” and “revised” vote totals.

    2. Kind of like the gummint’s constantly-revised numbers re: economic activity, etc.

      “Well, now it’s really right. Really. It’s right now. Well – till we do the one-year lookback update adjustment…”

      Fucking “do it neat, do it once, do it right” (Mr. Stuckey – Chemistry) – how does it work?

      Stuke’s other lasting contribution to Almanian’s thinking: “In science you can NEVER be 100% sure. You can be 99.somenumberofninesafterthedecimal sure….but never 100%. If you’re 100% sure, then it’s not science.”

      But, but…MANMADE GLOBAL WARRRRRRRRMING!!!!!11!!

      1. well even “99% sure” is meaningless unless you’re a keynesian. What does that mean, in 1 out of 100 universes you’re wrong?

        1. *the keynesians would argue that it means you’re willing to take 1:100 odds. I’ve been placing bets on scientific results around the lab and I find that the willingness to take odds also is determined by the stakes; a $1-10 bet is not the same as a $10-100 bet, and that’s not the same as a 1 muffin-10 muffin bet.

          1. I like muffins.

        2. Yeah, the number of nines to the RIGHT of the decimal is rather the point.

    3. The satellites don’t directly measure temperature; they measure microwave emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere, and so the data needs a lot of processing. Basically Spencer and the UAH team are praticing good transparency by releasing the preliminary data and then documenting corrections to it.

      And I say this as someone who is in general not a fan of Spencer.

  5. Man, this global warming thing is KILLING me!

    1. And – lol!

    2. We’re lovin it!

  6. Once again, we get an update about…nothing. It’s so very useful. It is amusing to watch the climate cultists slowly–ever so slowly–backing away from their disgraced religion, though. They think they’re not so obvious, but they are.

    1. You’re pretty entertaining yourself.

      1. Episiarch isn’t pretty just while he’s entertaining himself. He’s ALWAYS pretty.

        1. Are you his valet? That must be rewarding.

          1. Oh, yes on both counts! Very rewarding, thank you!

        2. I’m too pretty. It’s a curse that I wouldn’t wish on anyone else, because then they’d be prettier than me, and I can’t have that.

          1. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall Who’s the Prettiest of Them All?

            1. For fuck sake epi, all anuses look the same; pull up your pants

              1. You have GOT to be joking. I can draw or paint Jena Jameson’s taut, well defined starfish from memory, and it looks nothing like my girlfriend’s sink hole to Satan’s lair.

                1. I can confirm what Alan is saying.

                2. Alan’s correct and I can confirm both of his descriptions.

                3. The magic mirror was speaking of men’s assholes. Care to give an opinion?

                  1. During fuck scenes in porn, I block them out with my hand, and wish them away. Dude’s asses are uglier than even the pair of balls hanging like a choked turkey’s neck under them. I don’t understand heterosexual women or gay men in their preferences at all.

                    1. FCS, shave your balls and asshole

                    2. How is that going to help? It’s hairless chickens doing straight porn on the side that mostly make up those scenes I’m complaining about!

                      Back in the day, a behind the guy camera angle wasn’t so bad of an endurance test because Ron Jeremy’s ass and balls were totally hidden in pubes.

                    3. These are the side tangents that make H&R what it is.

                    4. I speaking of what a woman wants. Women need to view the man’s full body. Porn is poorly scripted for a female’s need to see a man’s back, chest, abs, shoulders, ass, and definitely his face when he has an orgasm.

                      A man’s penis ain’t as pretty as you all think

                      http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..eir-dicks/

    2. DENIER!!!!11!!!1one!!!!won!!!

    3. Here’s the thing: the anomaly for June is huge, particularly for UAH which uses a more recent baseline making the anomalies look smaller than CRU or GISS. It happens just as the strong La Nina fizzles out in the Pacific, allowing us to get a brief look at what temperatures look like without ENSO variability. If we get an El Nino later this year there’s a very good chance 2012 will set a brand new record high.

      That’s why small changes of only one or two degrees can have big consequences; you have a greater probability of record highs, and a decreased probability of record lows. Eliminating seasonal variability shows those record highs outpaced the lows nearly 11 to 1 last month.

  7. Man it’s hot. It’s like Africa hot. Tarzan couldn’t take this kind of hot.

    1. its so fucken hot my faygo’s boiling off

      1. It’s so hot that the lettering on my Faygo Grape bottle is melting away and now it says “Go Rape” and I’m now going to walk across the street and rape somebody.

        1. You need a therapist.

          1. It’s funny, but for years I thought therapy had something to do with psychology and not with rape. This knowledge casts Woody Allen movies and the character Frasier in a different light.

          2. I know how you feel. People take me the wrong way all the time.

            1. Yep.

              1. We’re in a similar predicament.

              2. We’re in a similar predicament.

        2. Needs more ALL CAPS.

          1. It’s too hot for all caps.

  8. Zit hawt enuff foe ya?

    1. Tso hort da shwet is runnin down my ayce.

  9. The beauty of this is that I’ve got air-conditioning. Thus,I don’t give a flying fuck.

    1. watch for the rolling blackouts coming to a town near you sooon

      1. We’ll be charging a premium to come to our house when Teh Blackouts [NB – RACIST!] commence.

  10. So if I’m reading this right, it’s warmer in the summer than the winter. Wow. I know it’s winter in the southern hemisphere, but most of the Earth’s landmass is in the northern hemisphere.

    If this chart went back 2,000 years, we would be below the average – but not as far as the two nasty Little Ice Ages.

    1. In the last 10000 years, it appears we’re still rather on the chilly side.

    2. Old Soldier|7.7.11 @ 2:08PM|#

      So if I’m reading this right, it’s warmer in the summer than the winter. Wow. I know it’s winter in the southern hemisphere, but most of the Earth’s landmass is in the northern hemisphere.

      You are not reading this right.

      1. Are you saying that it is, in fact, colder in the summer than in the winter?

        1. No.

    3. UAH takes the monthly temperature and then subtracts the average temperature over a twenty year period from it. This removes the seasonal variability and is how they arrive at the monthly anomaly of +0.13 C over baseline.

    1. SPOILER!

      1. I am on the third book.

        here is my spoiler:

        Too many people are still alive by first 3rd of the third book. Main characters drop like flies my ass!!!

        And I think Jon Snow dies or gets laid or neither or both.

    2. I scarcely think the fact that Hodor says Hodor is any kind of spoiler.

      1. Sometimes he says it 2 or 3 times. Don’t even bother with next season now.

        1. I’m just in it for the boobs.

          1. Define “it”.

      2. Hodor?

  11. Speaking of Balloon Juice:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2…..rian-mind/

    Bless the ones who read this, for they know not what they are clicking on.

    1. I’m convince that those shitgarglers are the source of most of our pop-up trolls. They should all be peeled, salted, roasted and fed to Steve Smith if that’s the case.

    2. I’m not touching that with a 50 foot pole. Jesus, you must be one hell of a masochist.

    3. I swear to god, I think I will threaten to read that article to my kids if they don’t behave.

      1. Congratulations, Achtung! You get the “Casey Anthony AWESOME Parent of the Month” award!

    4. Nice. An echo chamber. Just like this place.

      1. Just like this place.

        Um, the comments are like this place…but the main article itselt?…I mean, Stossel is kind of a douche bag, but his arguments are much more fair than this shithead’s.

        1. Don’t bother responding to Anonopussy. You might as well try arguing water out of being wet.

          1. try arguing water out of being wet.

            that woolly headed lummox.

          2. Don’t you feel silly now?

          3. Don’t you feel silly now, NutraSweet?

            1. Oh, did it say something to me?

          4. Anonopussy sounds like the name for a minor league Bond villain.

      2. I bet you have more disagreements about Libertarianism at H&R than you do have disagreements about whatever the fuck JC is espousing these days at BJ.

        I disagree with Libertarians about plenty of things (Iraq war, immigration for example) and would hardly classify this place as an echo chamber.

        1. Stop by during a Balkobot frenzy.

          1. Stop by? Sheeeit, I have gone through a pile of athletic cups from Balko nutpunches.

            I agree with the majority of H&R commenters when it comes to most Balko posts. Are you surprised that there is near universal agreement in ending SWAT team drug raids at a FUCKING LIBERTARIAN BLOG?

            Boy, you stuck on stupid.

            1. Are you surprised that there is near universal agreement in ending SWAT team drug raids

              Not at all. I share that view. By “frenzy” I mean the lynch-mob mentality of foaming-at-the-mouth, knuckle-dragging cop-haters who put all law enforcement professionals in the same basket.

              1. Wow, you call a libertarian blog comment section a “lynch mob” because they are extremely anti-authoritarian especially when it comes to LEO’s?

                You still stuck on stupid.

                1. they are extremely anti-authoritarian

                  Most adolescents are.

              2. When the cops start arresting each other, they can get out of the basket.

                1. robc deserves a prize for this statement.

    5. It’s actually not the most terrible smear piece on libertarianism I’ve seen. He takes one word from The Jacket’s piece on Epstein’s arrest (powerless) and turns it into a positive liberty rant about the underprivileged poor in DC who were just never given a chance and are thus the true powerless here. Add an obligatory Corporations are evil and make profits paragraph, another one about how can you be against gun control because there is violence, and it’s over.

      OTOH, For the love of Odin, don’t read the comments.

      1. It’s like a train wreck, you can’t turn away.

        1. How could I have been so blind? Their ad hominem arguments have helped me see the truth that was right before my eyes – nationalizing the means of production is the only way human society will ever alleviate poverty. Never mind the historical results, the idea is sound!

      2. Wow, read the story and got through 100 comments….

        Those people abdicated any traces of individuality so long ago it’s not even a memory apparently. I almost started to feel sorry for elmo because he was trying so hard to not be a dick but he got shouted down so many times he just caved.

    6. Bless me my hyperlinker, for I have sinned.

      I clicked and then posted. Web help me.

    7. Why, oh why did I click?
      ‘They have no vocabulary of power as experienced, so even if they were inclined to help those on the bottom, they would lack the understanding capable of doing such a thing.’

      Good post. Gawd I hate a libertarian. But I would say that the above is close but not quite right (or maybe this amounts to the same thing): they have no experience of power other than what they personally experience, which they then take to be power-neutral, a baseline which is neither exceptional nor noteworthy. So, yes, other people’s power or lack of it never enters their consciousness, but only because they take for granted the power ? to whatever extent ? they already possess.

      What is this person saying, I know I’m a couple Bourbons deep already, but does that drivel mean anything?

      1. I think he is saying that back in the day he liked to cut loose to that song with the scream mantra, ‘I Got The Powah!’, but then it diverges into a confession about dumping a baby in a trash bin, so I don’t to know what to make of it. Maybe it’s an outline of his idea for a novel in the vein of White Oleander. Just too confusing to make either heads or tails of, really.

      2. He’s saying libertarians are narcissists so wrapped up in their own little world they think what happens to them is the norm for everybody.

        The problem with this argument is that everyone is like this, not just the libertarians he happens to hate. It’s a little hard to understand what other people are going through when all you have is your own subjective experience.

        1. No, the problem with that argument is that it’s an ad hominem based on a strawman.

          What is isn’t is an argument based on anything to do with climate data.

          It is this reason that makes many suspect the motives of those who support climate change legislation. Without such legislation, nobody’s going to be able to force others to make them rich.

          1. The post where this guy commented was a criticism of the libertarian model of power and how it fuctions in society. It wasn’t about climate change.

            1. My bad.

              However, it’s still a criticism based on a strawman, as the inference that there exists a singular ‘libertarian model of power’ is easily debunked by a cursory reading of the comments on H&R.

    8. I ventured and found the comments are a festival of stupid.

  12. This is about as useful as a second by second update on growing corn.


  13. dogwood – July 6, 2011 | 9:25 pm ? Link

    sneezy:

    So again, to the extent that Balko’s actions contributed to a wrongly-convicted person being freed, he’s got my utmost respect. But I see this as entirely disconnected from any “libertarian” beliefs he may have.

    I’m not sure this is correct. If Cory Maye’s conviction weren’t connected to the drug war, he wouldn’t have given it any consideration. I’m glad he wrote about the case, but it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact he used the Maye case to further his political agenda.

    1. Wow.

      You sure that wasn’t from Puffington Host?

  14. “I’m yawning. I’m yawning some more. And… zzzzzzzzzzzz.”

  15. ,,,, I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshibalaptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fedex. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, BuzzSave.com

  16. So the purported increase per decade (computed over a grand total of 3 decades) is about one fifth the range the 13-month running average since 1978 (-0.35 to 0.4) and one third the range since 2008 (-0.05 to 0.4).

    That’s some nice noise you’ve got there.

  17. Good lord, the stupid is not just strong in this one, it is made of adamantium.

    DonkeyKong – July 6, 2011 | 4:33 pm ? Link

    We need to rewire the 911 system for libertarians. Instead of responding to an emergency with parasitic unionized EMT’s. Send out a group of hedgefund managers.

    They could short the libertarian in distress using the free market if he could not pay a “market rate price”.

    In other words?…

    1. Short
    2. ???WTF????
    3. Profit!

    1) My closest EMS is definitely not unionized. A distant relative runs it, and he despises unions.

    2) Even if they were unionized, they have no incentive to deny me service. Unlike the lice infested hippie DonkeyKong, I can afford that labor cost premium tact to my bill.

    Better yet, my billing would reflect the full price with a subsidy attached so mangy DonkeyKong and the poor he believes himself to be an advocate can enjoy the use of those services.

    3) Using the underwear gnome example for a bit of corporashuns bashing agit-prop? WTF? Did he not get it at all when he watched that episode?

    1. Here in NYC, one group of tax leaches was pitted against another when Giuliani forced the merger of NYEMS and NYFD so the perennially lousy fire department would be able to help itself to the EMS budget and a slew of federal grants.
      http://www.fdnyemswebsite.com/

  18. Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

    Ron where the hell are you getting this number?

    1. It is at the bottom of the table.
      Last row.

    2. You can browse over to http://www.woodfortrees.org/ and create your own graphs using any of the temp data sets. It’s very easy to use and you can control the filtering, baseline period etc.

  19. I have the pleasure to brief you on our Data Visualization software
    “Trend Compass”.

    TC is a new concept in viewing statistics & trends in an animated way
    by displaying in one chart 5 axis (X, Y, Time, Bubble size & Bubble
    color) instead of just the traditional X and Y axis. Discover trends
    hidden in spreadsheets. It could be used in analysis, research,
    presentation etc. In different business sectors, to name a few we
    have Deutsche Bank, NBC Universal, RIM, Vanguard Institutional
    Investor, Ipsos, Princeton University as our clients.

    Link on Drilling feature (Parent/Child) – Just double-click on any bubble:
    epicsyst.com/test/v2/drilling/

    Link on our new Geographical Trend Compass (Earthquake in Japan – Mag
    vs Depth vs Time):
    epicsyst.com/test/v2/japan-earthquake

    Regards.

    Amr Salah
    Trend Compass Team
    Epic Systems
    http://www.epicsyst.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.