this will de-bunk your "global warming" theory:

There is no "climate science" .... there is only "climate history", and not a lot of that either.


"I don't see no global warming here, Jim-Bob, do you?"
"Naw, Cleatus, not that I kan sae; what 'bout'chew Elmer?"
"Nope, Jim-Bob, I don't see nuffin' ether; maybe it's jus' bisicklical weathur patturnz." "Whut 'bout'chew, Festus? Yew thank der's enythang to dis polar vortecks?"
"Ain't thankin' it's nuffin' more than Wintur."


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm


State by state low temperature records State Temp. Date Station Elevation
( F) (feet)
Alabama -27 Jan. 30, 1966 New Market 760
Alaska -80 Jan. 23, 1971 Prospect Creek 1,100
Arizona -40 Jan. 7, 1971 Hawley Lake 8,180
Arkansas -29 Feb. 13, 1905 Pond 1,250
California -45 Jan. 20, 1937 Boca 5,532
Colorado -61 Feb. 1, 1985 Maybell 5,920
Connecticut -32 Feb. 16, 1943 Falls Village 585
Delaware -17 Jan. 17, 1893 Millsboro 20
Florida - 2 Feb. 13, 1899 Tallahassee 193
Georgia -17 Jan. 27, 1940 N. Floyd County 1,000
Hawaii 12 May 17, 1979 Mauna Kea 13,770
Idaho -60 Jan. 18, 1943 Island Park Dam 6,285
Illinois -36 Jan. 5, 1999 Congerville 722
Indiana -36 Jan. 19, 1994 New Whiteland 785
Iowa -47 Feb. 3, 1996* Elkader 770
Kansas -40 Feb. 13, 1905 Lebanon 1,812
Kentucky -37 Jan. 19, 1994 Shelbyville 730
Louisiana -16 Feb. 13, 1899 Minden 194
Maine -48 Jan. 19, 1925 Van Buren 458
Maryland -40 Jan. 13, 1912 Oakland 2,461
Massachusetts -35 Jan. 12, 1981 Chester 640
Michigan -51 Feb. 9, 1934 Vanderbilt 785
Minnesota -60 Feb. 2, 1996 Tower 1,430
Mississippi -19 Jan. 30, 1966 Corinth 420
Missouri -40 Feb. 13, 1905 Warsaw 700
Montana -70 Jan. 20, 1954 Rogers Pass 5,470
Nebraska -47 Feb. 12, 1899 Camp Clarke 3,700
Nevada -50 Jan. 8, 1937 San Jacinto 5,200
New Hampshire -47 Jan. 29, 1934 Mt. Washington 6,288
New Jersey -34 Jan. 5, 1904 River Vale 70
New Mexico -50 Feb. 1, 1951 Gavilan 7,350
New York -52 Feb. 18, 1979* Old Forge 1,720
North Carolina -34 Jan. 21, 1985 Mt. Mitchell 6,525
North Dakota -60 Feb. 15, 1936 Parshall 1,929
Ohio -39 Feb. 10, 1899 Milligan 800
Oklahoma -31 Feb. 9, 2011 Nowata 709
Oregon -54 Feb. 10, 1933* Seneca 4,700
Pennsylvania -42 Jan. 5, 1904 Smethport est. 1,500
Rhode Island -25 Feb. 5, 1996 Greene 425
South Carolina -19 Jan. 21, 1985 Caesars Head 3,100
South Dakota -58 Feb. 17, 1936 McIntosh 2,277
Tennessee -32 Dec. 30, 1917 Mountain City 2,471
Texas -23 Feb. 8, 1933* Seminole 3,275
Utah -69 Feb. 1, 1985 Peter's Sink 8,092
Vermont -50 Dec. 30, 1933 Bloomfield 915
Virginia -30 Jan. 22, 1985 Mountain Lake 3,870
Washington -48 Dec. 30, 1968 Mazama 2,120 Winthrop 1,755
West Virginia -37 Dec. 30, 1917 Lewisburg 2,200
Wisconsin -55 Feb.4, 1996 Couderay 1,300
Wyoming -66 Feb. 9, 1933 Riverside 6,650

Oh, then, there's this:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climatologists-einsteins-successor/

Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
Date: 05/04/13

Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.



Freeman Dyson is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson came to this country from his native England at age 23 and immediately made major breakthroughs in quantum theory. After that he worked on a nuclear-powered rocket (see video below). Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

“There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.


More at: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

BTW, how's your "Polar Vortex" doing? Are you keeping it in your pants?