Temperature Trends

2016 Warmest Year in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

Edges out 1998: Likely to be confirmed by thermometer data later this month.



"Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record," notes Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center in a press release from The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Christy adds, "Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998. The main difference was the extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared to 1998." Globally, the atmopshere in 2016 was +0.505 C° warmer than the 30 year average (1981-2010) whereas 1998 was +0.484 C° warmer than that average.

Given that the satellite data trend tends to be lower than the trends based on thermometer readings from around the globe it is likely that other groups will also be declaring 2016 to be the warmest year in their records stretching back to the late 19th century. I'll report their results when they become available.

Global Temperature Report: December 2016

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.24 C (about 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 C (about 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: +0.21 C (about 0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.


"The question is, does 2016's record warmth mean anything scientifically?" Christy said in the press release. "I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event. While El Niños are natural climatic events, they also are transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural causes.

"Some records catch our attention because we usually struggle to cope with rare events. For example, the Sept.-Nov. record heat and dryness in the southeastern U.S. (now a thing of the past) will be remembered more than the probability that 2016 edged 1998 in global temperatures. So, from the long-term perspective, 2016's record may be less noteworthy than where the month-to-month temperature settles out between warming and cooling events."

NEXT: Thank You, Gary Johnson, for Being the Best Thing in 2016!

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. The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically?” Christy said in the press release. “I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Ni?o Pacific Ocean warming event.

    I think we’re done here, don’t you?

    1. I think we’re done here, don’t you?


      1. The relevance, it is missing.

      2. Dumb ass survey.

        1. Climate change is occurring

        Climate is always changing, as it always has, well before man existed.

        2. Climate change is caused by humans

        Assumes a binary answer. See answer to #1.

        3. Climate change is harmful

        Harmful to what? What is your definition of “climate change”?

        1. I assume the political scientist is using the popular definition of “climate change.”

          I’ll bet you’re a real treat to hang out with at a pub…

          1. I assume the political scientist hack is using the popular definition of “climate change.”

            So you don’t have a definition. What is a “popular definition” for one person may be different than the “popular definition” for a different person. The survey is therefore of dubious value and isn’t science.

            1. Now, now there’s no reason to get rowdy and start name-calling.

              You’re obviously drunk. Go home. And when you decide to come back try to remember your manners…

              Sheesh! If “libertarians” continue to insist that their alternate realities are good substitutes for public discourse then they’ll continue to be ignored (and rightfully so).

              1. So, you still couldn’t manage to address the actual substance of his points even though you are corpse-fucking this thread hours later.

              2. Still failed to provide a definition of “climate change”. In fact, you failed to address anything I pointed out about your dubious survey. You’re are a petulant child.

                1. There’s nothing to address.

                  I can’t argue with your imagination, after all…

                  1. There’s nothing to address.

                    Once again you fail to provide a definition of “climate change”.

    2. Ah, but what causes *El Ni?o*?

      1. Cuando mam? y pap? se aman mucho….

        1. Y no por el culo…

            1. And then they played a board game, Jenga tu Madre.

      2. The Weather Wrestling Federation?

      3. A strawberry, six lime wedges, simple syrup, and tequila. Shake and strain.

    3. Shame it’s going away next year. This year was a fantastic year for weather. Going to miss all the rain and mild weather when we go back to normal.

  2. Anecdotally, it’s January 3rd and it’s 72 degrees in my living room – which is the exact same temperature my living room was in August of last year. If that ain’t a sign of something, I don’t know what is.

    1. It means your house is well-insulated. You deserve the Energy Star!

      1. Did you ask him how many orphans he has to burn in winter or how many must wave fans at him to make this happen? Energy efficiency or something…

        1. Orphans are also carbon-credits waiting to happen.

          Pay it forward!

  3. Or it’s my bosses testing the low setting on the orbital bombardment cannons…

    1. They better knock it off, or I’ll go all Mexican Radio on their tails.

        1. Thanks Frank! I knew somebody would get it!

          1. Beautiful things, begin at Frank’s!

            Frank’s Nursery and Crafts.

            1. That jingle popped into my head. Didn’t even have to click the link. But I did. Was not disappointed.

              Here’s a classic. Great jingle.

              1. Awesome!

                I will admit there’s been times in my life when a phone was ringing that I would chime in:

                National two nine (rrrrr-ing!) thousand!

  4. “The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically?” Christy said in the press release. “I suppose the answer is, not really.”


  5. Precipitation is off charts for 2016 if one counts rain of prog-tears.

    1. “rain of prog-tears”

      Megadeath reunion album?

      1. rain of prog-tears

        My cup runneth over.

        … and it makes me smile.

      2. I guess they’ll rewrite Holy Wars?

  6. Interesting, and corresponds with this report about a new study on libertarians and climate change beliefs (LINK). In general, libertarians are not “climate change deniers.”

    So who the fuck reads reason, if not libertarians?

    1. Libertarians don’t believe in massive Fedgov tax and spend programs, which is a heresy in the Church of Climatology.

      1. A great point, but libertarians lose A LOT of credibility by jumping from “what should be done” to “climate change is statist.”

        1. Uh…

          Why bother asking the question?

          Regardless of individual opinions on temperature trends, I think any individuals answer about what GOVERNMENT should do about it defines their ideology far better than whatever party they claim to support.

          And a libertarian’s answer “What should government do about anything that isn’t basically murder/fraud/coercion? Nothing. What should you do about it? Don’t give a fuck.”

          1. Which is why the question is in the survey.

            If you think climate change is manmade/harmful then that means you thinks it’s coercion, which in turn means government needs to step in and do something about it.

            1. If you think climate change is manmade/harmful then that means you thinks it’s coercion, which in turn means government needs to step in and do something about it.

              Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that I think are both man-made and harmful, but I don’t think my government should get involved because some combination of: A) The harm is small and/or highly subjective; B) I don’t think the government would actually be able to stop the harm without causing even worse harm of its own.

              Examples include: tailgating drivers, spam emails, abortion, climate change, civil wars in other countries, economic protectionist policies of other governments, etc.

              1. And Nodnarb will fail to notice that more than one of those you point out are caused BY GOVERNMENT.

              2. There are plenty of things that I think are both man-made and harmful, but I don’t think my government should get involved

                You don’t, but plenty of other libertarians do (hence the survey)…

                1. You don’t, but plenty of other libertarians do (hence the survey)…

                  The survey is bull shit because you failed to provide a definition of ‘climate change’ leaving it up to the individual to apply their definition. Roughly 20,000 years ago the great lakes did not even exist and that area was under several thousand meters of ice. The earths climate has been changing since the earth was formed making the second question (caused by humans) idiotic. You are so naive about climate you can’t even see how stupid you look.

    2. Hitler?

      1. I was being a snarky bitch, but don’t claim LP if you’re just a Republican who smokes weed…

        1. Yes, requiring actual demonstration and proof that man is causing catastrophic warming (the climate change models based on CO2 have all failed miserably, therefore falsifying the hypothesis), and that this warming is bad, before accepting massive government taxing, spending, and control, is so not libertarian. Troll much?

          1. Just because you can’t come up with a non-fallacious argument doesn’t mean I’m a troll.

            It just means you’re not thinking things through. (A true product of public education!)

            Your side (GOP weed smokers) might be right, but between the weed smoke and the smoke from the straw men you keep burning down, my eyes are beginning to burn…

            1. So burning down your straw man arguments are also bad? What do you have against fire? Oh, I get it. You hate weed and straw man burning because of CO2 release.

              1. More brilliance!

                For the record I love fire. And 69ing nunya’s mom.

      1. “Droll troll”? I’ve never heard this one before. CLEVER!!

  7. So is it Global Warming or Climate Change? Hedging your bets?

  8. It’s Bailey’s time of the month again.

  9. Here’s a question for somebody who can actually work the data. Is this:

    Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

    unprecedented, as far as we can tell, in the historical record? Are there any other 40 year periods with this kind of rate of change? If so, then what is the basis for saying our 40 year warming trend is due to anthro CO2?

    Further question: can the historical record even detect that rate of change? How good is the data, really, and if we can’t even tell if this is unprecedented, then why do people keep acting as if it is?

    1. Forty years is satellite temp record. There isn’t forty years of satellite data before that, and before satellites there is no instrumented, calibrated global temperature data set. So .12C is unprecedented in the era of actual global observation of climate, which ~40 years.

      1. Unlike prior generations, our generation knows everything that there is to know so why would we need more data? All science is settled. It should be obvious how super smart we are. Hrumf.

      2. The CAGW folks keep using much longer time frames, though, using proxies and whatnot. My question might be refined to this:

        Does the current warming trend look unique in the datasets that go back more than 40 years? Can those proxies/datasets even reliably show a .12C/decade warming trend?

        1. The trend quantification reminds me of the line about how you know macro-economists have a sense of humor – they have decimal points in their predictions.

          1. That’s funny right there.

    2. Actually, I have a better question. If El Nino warming is a known phenomenon. Why where people surprised in 1998? This supposedly happens once ever twenty years or so. Shouldn’t we have realized that that year’s temperature might as well be ignored?

      1. Actually, I have a better question. If El Nino warming is a known phenomenon. Why where people surprised in 1998?

        I think it was known phenomena in 1998; in same way any other un-politicized science subject is ‘known.’

        Problem with 1998 temps is it was marketed as affirmation of Mikey Mann’s hockey stick, and the beginning of political climate in earnest. That outlier hot year is where the ‘no net rise in temps for past 18 years’ rhetoric has come from, much to chagrin of the Warmers who have been trying to keep that piece of flim-flam afloat ever since, because a religion can’t envision conceding an error without conceding its entire canonical narrative; and Mikey Mann is an A-lister in that cult to boot.

        How many countless hours of prog-mind cycles and supercomputer time have been wasted trying to inject that stupid hockey-stick graph with credibility? And all that wasted effort has cost Carbontology so much; if they could’ve just cut that graph and Mikey loose years ago they would be farther along their political goals than otherwise. Just stupid.

        1. phenomenon. Please, use phenomenon.

          1. phenomenon. Please, use phenomenon.

            You didn’t capitalize the first word, yet used a period…while making a grammar check.



            1. By all means, continue to use the plural.

        2. “The heat has been hiding in the bottom of the ocean!!”

          1. No doubt near the lair of ManBearPig.


      2. El Ni?o (you racist mofos) is usually – if not always – followed by La Ni?a events. It’ll be interesting to see the dissembling when that occurs.

        1. Same response as last time…

          ‘…hide the decline…’

          1. No, no, NO! They’re scientists. They know how to science the SHIT out of events! They’d never mess with data.

            …except for, yaknow, all the times when they did. But forget about that. Because consensus! Which is totally a part of the scientific method!

        2. I hope you’re Spanish BP, otherwise your use of the tilde is cultural appropriation.

          1. No lobster paella for him, or at least as Hollywood describes paella.

    3. No. In the Jurassic Period, some scientists believe the polar caps were totally melted.

      And there was 5 times the CO2 level we have today

      1. No. In the Jurassic Period, some scientists believe the polar caps were totally melted.

        What, 1993?

      2. As much as I dislike him, Dick Santorum had the right reply when lefty douchebags asked him if he knew about CO2. He said “It’s plant food.” And the left is still ridiculing him for being correct.

      3. And there was 5 times the CO2 level we have today

        Like there is any correlation.


    4. I actually did a simple linear regression a few years back and it came out to like .127 celsius per decade. Obviously the data is extremely noisy.

  10. …it is likely that other groups will also be declaring 2016 to be the warmest year in their records stretching back to the late 19th century.

    My own modeling has this as the hottest year since the dawn of time. And of course I mean my personal male modeling. “Fist of Etiquette’s so hot right now. Fist.”

    1. Stupid sexy fist.

    2. I’m sure you’re a prize at PTA meetings.

  11. Cut to the McQueen chase Bailey. Are we gonna cook or not if we don’t act NOW?!

  12. It’s really hot…in my pants!

  13. Unless I miss my guess, this November 20 article is not so much based on a nonpartisan dedication to reforming the Constitution as it is based on a desire to postpone the Trump inauguration as long as possible:

    “If there ever was a time to recognize the folly of enacting the 20th Amendment, it’s now. That was the amendment moving up the presidential inauguration from March 4 to Jan. 20, and the start of the new Congress from March 4 to Jan. 3….

    “…a good argument could be made that the Founding Fathers, who imposed the interregnum, were concerned about more than simply the time it took for politicians to journey from their homes to the nation’s capital. They might also have believed that newly elected officeholders, before taking the reins of the federal government, needed some fundamental schooling in the jobs they were about to occupy.”

    As the inauguration approaches, I bet many people are feeling like Dr. Faustus in his final soliloquy.

    1. I wonder what their response would have been if Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh had said the same thing about a certain Community Organizer back in 2009.

      Actually, no, I don’t wonder.

    2. Funny that he says FDR was supposed to show how important the 20th amendment was because we all know Hoover wasn’t doing anything to stop the great depression…. Wait, you say that isn’t even true. Well count me as surprised.

  14. Re:. The hosptal comment in other thread. Everyone in my family has RSV.

    My wife has pneumonia from it, but me and babyc are head only.

    1. Vodka!

    2. I hope your Revised Standard Version clears up soon.

      1. Vodka!

    1. Eddie, drop al least a hit of acid before you ever describe anything as ‘psychedelic’ again. Just an FYI, this is a psychedelic song.

      1. BTW Ed, it’s not hate against your vid, which is actually cool (for those of us who like retro) but it’s British Mod (65-69), not psychedelic. Also, The Yardbirds and Small Faces. (Note: I’m not stating these bands didn’t use LSD).

        1. Cool to see that very young Jimmy Page.

      2. Also – sorry, I was thinking of The Fusionist when I called you “Eddie”.

      3. OK, I’ll drop some acid, but I don’t think it will affect me…I’m seeing a few visions, that’s all… OMG THE HORROR, THE HORROR.

        1. And *that’s* why you should stay off drugs, boys and girls.

          1. My public-service announcement for the night.

              1. But you gotta watch out! There may be dogs about!

                Wow. Pretty colors. pretty colors pretty colors pretty colors pretty colors

                  1. Dude. DUDE. You once bitched at me for sticking a moronic link in reply to trolls, and yet you still post a Baha Men link? Seriously?

                    1. No; I posted it frivolously!

                      And you’re not a troll.

                    2. Also, my links are safe for work. Unlike stuff that, say, SF posts.

                    3. Okay, I’m not sure of your sarcasm level, Ted. It’s not like we disagree on basic principles (AFAIK). Are you saying I’m a troll? I wasn’t looking to have a problem

                    4. He doesn’t even like Tevin Campbell songs! Don’t listen to him!!

                    5. If I was bitching at you, it was probably for tediously responding to trolls, not for your horrible taste in music.

                      If threads where some troll posts 100 times are irritating, threads where there are also 100 responses basically saying, “The above poster is a troll!” are even worse.

        1. I remember this one

        2. I can’t deny that, but the yodeling is a turnoff. Had the album as a kid, no idea what happened to it – (note: most likely sold for booze or weed.)

  15. Whenever I read these temperature statistics, I have to convert them. I’m just more used to measuring temperature in degrees Freedom, and not degrees Communism.

    1. With all due respect, WTF was that?

      1. HM sorts a random concatenation of terms, refines by view count, then sorts least to most. And then he narrows down his selection from there.

  16. Yeah, but as long as the greatest leader of a nation who ever lived still reigns, then we can still be happy and go about our normal existence, right? I mean, we still have what, 16 days before doom befalls us?

  17. “And BAILEY looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was warmed; for all flesh had warmed its way upon the earth.”

  18. So, is 2016 warmer than 1998 as recorded, or as tweaked after the fact?

  19. While El Ni?os are natural climatic events, they also are transient.

    Fuckin’ homeless ruin everything.

  20. Correct headline: fudging temperature data reaches new highs….

    1. But do you actually believe the police affidavit?

      1. do you actually believe the police affidavit?

        Its Florida. Do you doubt it?

        1. It’s the police. I doubt everything they say.

          1. You’re right. Its possible the cops pissed themselves laughing at the guy.

            1. But do you really think the guy tried to choke himself, screaming “Police brutality!”?

              1. (shrug)

                i don’t think they’d need to make shit up just to charge him. most of that shit isn’t even a crime, its just funny.

    2. My intoxication on the other hand is impeccably orderly, like a proper gentleman… ladies.

  21. btw, does anyone else think these ‘temperature trend’ posts are sort of ridiculous?

    Climate changes at glacial/geologic rates. we get it = things are getting warmer. sort of. If you think the last 40-50 years is significant of anything.

    But its not “news” that require monthly updates, like someone’s going to be surprised by ‘next months’ slightly-warmer-than-historically*-average, even if that historical average isn’t very historical at all. Its not much different than the people who get exited when the dow crosses 20,000. ooooh, numbers. significant of nothing.

    1. Gilmore, those monthly reports are like mile markers on the road to perdition. Look! There’s another! We’re .0005 degrees closer to the hell that is Mad Max!
      (No offense to Lord Humongous)

    2. I have it on good authority that the planet has been all but destroyed by hordes of starving humans. In fact, this happened years ago. You and I are merely apparitions discussing the next phase of human catastrophe.

      1. I have it on good authority that the planet has been all but destroyed by hordes of starving humans

        that’s sort of what i’m getting at.

        the very act of ‘following the temperature chart’ has embedded teleological assumptions; where is this all *leading*? Is it leading anywhere?

        If you believe (as i do) that there’s no such thing as any climate ‘tipping point’, and that even if stuff gets warmer, we’re simply going to deal with it as we deal with everything else….

        ….and that the idea of humanity “doing something” to actually influence the direction of temperature changes is not going to happen because we ‘care’ hard enough, and desire it to be so, but will happen as a byproduct of technological evolution that is going to happen whether we really give a shit about the Climate or not….

        …then what’s the point?

        its like counting the number of trees in the rainforest or the amount of ice in the arctic = we use it as a proxy for “change” and assume that this change is bad

        but if this change is inevitable as a result of human existence, then …. so what? its just change. so there will be smaller ice-caps. and maybe Canada will have shorter winters, and maybe people who live at the equator will get even more miserable than they already are.

        Whoop-de-do. doesn’t tell me anything about the price of tea in china. its not information we can use.

        1. “but if this change is inevitable as a result of human existence, then …. so what?”

          And we’ve been informed many, many times already that if we didn’t
          DO SOMETHING!
          RIGHT THEN!,
          it was going to be too late.
          Well, it’s too late, according to the folks who proselytize the matter. So car-pooling once a week (per the San Diego Zoo bus driver/propagandist) isn’t gonna do a damn thing about it.

      2. You might be. I’m living in a three dimensional holograph projected by a fourth dimensional universe. And we have beer.

        1. Are you listening to the 5th Dimension?

          1. And watching The Sixth Element

            1. You must be in Seventh Heaven!

              1. OK, guys, you’re almost up to 8, and Eight is Enough.

              2. Hmm pretty good, but i was hoping for *mind blown*

          2. Did they do “Up with People”?

    3. It’s pretty much fucking meaningless hand-wringing twaddle. Obsessing over it gives off the same kind of vibe of an inexperienced day trader trying to understand the outcome of 10 year futures call based only on the data movement of the first opening minutes of a trading day. Remarkable but not useful information in terms of shitting your pants, or frankly even planning to put a god damn shore structure on stilts within 20 years. Hey folks, check out what happens when you do a time derivative on that temperature chart, it gets even more spooky and gives you the same thrill as riding in Doc’s DeLorean.

      On the compy-comp side of things, the number of variables that could go into predictive computational climate science is incrediblyinsanely complicated. By comparison, while predictive solvers for physics problems that are actually derive from physical law can be quite accurate, there is even a ton of potential for error in terms of subtle setup issues had with boundaries, assumptions, and physical setup that can result in simulation instability and even solutions that indicate nonpassive/nonphysicality behaviour.

      1. shorter = good enough for government work

        1. why settle for a few adequate terms when you can let film take the driver’s seat? If a picture is worth 1000 words, then surely this film is worth like a million and change.

    4. The unit of measure in climate is often 30 years.

      So, you’re entirely correct.

      Now imagine how many actual data points we have, based on 30 years for each unit.

      Two units with satellite data.

      So, the coins been flipped twice, both times tails came up, thus, our model says, it will be tails forever.

  22. And damn, right on cue, I see Judith Curry is retiring from GA Tech. Good piece for both climate change and the SJW hothouses universities are becoming.

    1. I gather from this 1) not all climatologists and those in related field are especially interested in entering the global warming affray, and a related but more consequential conclusion, 2) those who are engaged in the affray are self-selected and perhaps categorically driven to enter it. Which means that climate science in the popular and political realms is driven primarily by zealots.

      1. A sort of regulatory capture. You think anybody seeks employment at the EPA because they’re really interested in baking chocolate chip cookies? No, you go to work at the EPA because you’re horrified at those evil corporations raping Mother Earth and you want to become an Ecological Justice Warrior to fight those bastards.

  23. Is it time to panic yet?

  24. Standing in front of a bright red banner reading “Build Israel Great Again,” former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee promised Tuesday during an appearance in the West Bank that President-elect Donald Trump’s policies toward Israel would be very different than President Barack Obama’s.

    “I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria,” said Huckabee, using the Biblical terms for the West Bank. “There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”

    CNN, you mendacious fucks. “Judea and Samaria” may be the term used in ye olde antiquated Biblical times, but it is also the term used by the Israeli government for the region in these modern, I Fucking Love Science! times. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan isn’t World Geography Label Boss, especially in mandating use of a Bowdlerized toponym specifically engineered to distract from the uncomfortable implicature that a place called “Judea” might be homeland of a people who some have called “Judeans,” just as England is the homeland of the English, as opposed to merely being “Northern Normandy”.

      1. So my dream of emigrating and deflowering countless desperate Japanese hotties has been dashed. Damn it all.

      2. Japanese men lose their virginity later than Western men only if you don’t count mom stroking Japanese son off so he can focus on his upcoming test. *Link provided upon request.

        1. Rather than focusing on his Oedipus complex?

          1. Oral sex that also blows your mind.

              1. And I’ll let it remain where you left it.

              2. Using the diminutive “Kun”? Guess “chan” or “pon” would’ve been too offensive.

            1. I wish I could run this shit by my ex. She glommed on to Japanese culture because, imo, being black, she can’t embrace white culture. I’m a huge Anglophile, so we enjoyed Blackadder together, but that’s about all she cared for as far as whites are concerned. Japanese anime and manga offered her an authenticity that didn’t challenge her cultural heritage, even while it allowed her to escape the black identity she despised. I like to think maybe she’d appreciate the weirdness of authentic Japan. But maybe she had no idea.

              1. At least your ex sounds stable and well-adjusted.

                1. She was very well-adjusted. She lived in Detroit till she was twelve, then by the grace of a fellow church parishioner spent a year in Jamaica with a family there. It taught her discipline and the virtues of academia, and when she returned home she was shunned by her former friends for being a tryhard. Her mom moved them down to Texas to escape Detroit, and the rest is fairly boring.

                  I don’t think her affinity for Japanese culture was a deliberate rejection of white culture, because I’m not clear what white culture is supposed to signify. I brought up my own Anglophilia because the English are what I associate most with being white, but outside that very narrowly tailored definition, what is the American white? We’re some of us Protestants, not a lot of us watch NASCAR, we range from southern gentility to western bohemian and all colors in between. I suppose the closest thing to universal whiteness is innocuous academia, which is why Thomas Sowell is whiter than Marshall Mathers.

                  1. Sorry, I didn’t mean to be disrespectful to her, I simply yielded to the snark side of the Force.

                    1. I’m springboarding here. God knows I can’t share any of this on facebook.

                  2. I suppose the closest thing to universal whiteness is innocuous academia

                    That is the meanest thing you could have said to me.

                    1. I like to think that at the very least, white people have given the world overpaid navel-gazing as a competitive sport.

              2. The black people that I’ve met that have lived here more than a decade tend to have had their perspective towards white culture changed. I suppose it’s mostly based on the realization that neither of us will ever be fully accepted into the main culture. If they thought Mr Miyagi was waiting for them here, just hoping to teach them the crane technique, well, they’re disabused of that idea over the years.

      3. You know what else CNN lies about?


        1. You know who else lied about Hitler?

          1. Konrad Kujau, forger of the “Hitler Diaries”?

        2. Google Don Lemon getting his ear pierced for good fun.

    1. *Joke about Transjordan transitioning to just Jordan*

      1. Heh heh, that’s a good one.

  25. One day, Alice swallowed a whole handful of strange mushrooms and saw this.

    1. Dust Bowl wern’t no joke

  26. A big libertarian standing O for the Warriors!

    Back story:
    Warriors hoops team wants a stadium in SF (don’t know why), but they bought the land, are building the stadium with their own money; absolutely ZERO ‘public’ funds beyond ‘roadz’.
    Some folks with more money than sense have been tying it up in the courts until last autumn when an appeals court told them (in a sizeable majority) to fuck off. They actually wanted the land ‘donated’ by Sales Force (who had bought it several years back) for a new research facility. Benioff had to explain that it wasn’t his and he would have been dragged to court if he gave away the stockholders property like that.
    “Warriors set to start building Mission Bay arena on Jan. 17”
    “Susan Brandt-Hawley, a lawyer for the Mission Bay Alliance and other arena opponents, didn’t respond to a request for comment about the planned groundbreaking.”

    Of course she didn’t. She was out on the yacht the idiots bought for her and not taking cell-calls.
    (BTW, it you peer intently, you can see chez Sevo in the photo)

    1. A big libertarian standing O for the Warriors!

      Why can’t we come lying down?

      1. If it spins your beany, help yourself!
        Got that book on English today; on the shelf with the 5 or 6 I got for Xmas. Which one first? After the last of Atkinson’s trilogy on the western WWII front; too good to quit 3/4-way through.

    2. World B. Free would’ve torn torn that stadium up! Seriously though, there must be a lot of cronyism happening behind the scenes so it’s hard to know who’s the good guy.

    3. The Mayor backs the project – are you SURE there isn’t tax money getting dumped in there somewhere?

      I like how the initial oppo was because of it’ll block our view. Gawds – aside from a few people that live in the Bay Area that I like – that whole area could just suck itself up into its collective asshole and disappear.

      1. For both you and Straf:
        Maybe there is some under-the-table stuff, but with some connections to both the team and the SF city gov’t, it’s well hidden if it’s there.
        And *if* it’s there, it must be peanuts to avoid pissing off all the non-profits who would get a trim if it were sizeable.
        Put it another way: Did you ever hear of a team buying the land (out-right) and paying (out-right) for the construction of a stadium?

        1. Weren’t Pac Bell Park and the new Camden yards private?

          1. The Giants paid for the ball-yard, the land was ‘donated’. I like the Giants, I like the stadium, but they can pay for their own damn play-pen.
            Given what’s happened, you could even argue that the stadium (built on what was low-value land) has paid for itself in raising the surrounding land values and resultant taxes.
            But if some government poobah got lucky once, that’s totally irrelevant; Newsom gave away my property. It wasn’t his to give. Fuck him with Crusty’s dick.
            Dunno about Camden Yards.

        2. I have zero evidence that you’re not right about that. Just like to keep my inner skeptic on high alert.

          1. I don’t blame you and I’ve been watching this unfold for 3 years or so.
            They were first gonna built on ‘my’ land on a pier. I hated the idea since we (sevo/spouse) use the Embarcadero regularly, and it was MY land. But outside of MY land, it’s none of my business.
            Some busy-bodies (not me) managed to end that idea, and they then simply bought the land a half-mile south.
            So they weren’t acting from principle; they’d have taken the hand out if it was there, but it wasn’t. And they were ‘advised’ that owning the land would end whining from a sizable portion of SF whiners. They took that advice.

  27. Who dies first? The Queen or Charles Manson?

    1. Pretty sure the queen’s considered offing that dimwit Charles if he doesn’t die first.

      1. Hopefully, both of them Charles. There could be a Charles axis of evil if we could find the 3rd inbred.

        1. Charlie Harper, of the UK Subs? He’s old as fuck.

  28. Good fucking insanity, here is one of the latest posts from DU:

    This is urgently important news that everyone should care about

    ” A North Dakota legislative committee will consider amendments to almost three dozen sections and subsections of state law to include gender-neutral language on Wednesday, Jan. 4. ”

    I assume that this post will get 500 likes and at least 100 dancing banana gifs.

    1. dancing bananas are smilies, the homo erectus of what the kids these days call emojis

      1. Judging by the number of them being posted on DU and Facebook alongside the most retarded posts ever, I consider them the echelon of retard. I think the Jill Stein recount scam got 5000+ of those on DU, probably a record. I would like to think that 7 million scammed from retards is a record, but sadly, I know better.

  29. It is hoax created by the Chinese

    1. Calgon?

      1. Ancient Chinese secret !

        1. My husband; some hotshot!

          1. Trump will ban this yellow peril! Stealing our detergent, stealing our jerbz, stealing our husbands!

    2. Beware of this piece of shit.
      DO NOT click on any link this asshole offers. It is not as it is advertised; this piece of shit is more than happy to give your device problems for its amusement.
      This piece of shit deserves to be jammed face-first into the nearest sewage treatment plant.
      Fuck you, MD, with a rusty piece of train rail. Fuck off.
      Did I mention this piece of shit is a piece of shit?

  30. Eyeballing the charts, it looks like a step function at the previous El Nino.

    It will be interesting to see if we get another one.

  31. Jesus fucking christ. Quit giving in to this bullshit. The headline should obviously be “Evidence supporting El Nino/La Nina weather patterns continues to advance meteorology; we still don’t know what the fuck the weather’s going to be tomorrow.”

  32. Another ‘warmest year’ article, another snowstorm at my place half the world away. And now the polar whateverex is coming for the weekend.

    I know correlation is not causation, but could I have an advance warning of the next article, please?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.