Cold Sends Manatees To Warmer Water - Video - WESH Orlando

Turtles Rescued From Cold - Video - WESH Orlando

Solar geomagnetic index reaches unprecedented low – only “zero” could be lower – in a month when sunspots became more active « Watts Up With That?

As you can see, we’ve never had such a low value before, and the only place lower to go is “zero”.

But this is only part of the story. With the Ap index dwindling to a wisp of magnetism, it bolsters the argument made by Livingston and Penn that sunspots may disappear altogether by 2015.

Questioning the Climate Change Establishment | The Spectator

December was cold too, if you remember – yet apparently not included in the figures for 2009 which, if you recall, were jubilantly announced as being the fifth hottest since records began in the middle of November – ie when there was still 11 per cent of the year to go, the coldest bit. None of this disproves man made climate change, of course – but it does surely bring us back to that argument about whether or not we’re qualified to comment. I am well aware that one cold winter proves or disproves nothing; it is the mere blink of an eye, almost an irrelevance. But then, it wasn’t me who said that 2010 was going to be a scorcher and that this was indicative of man-made climate change. 2010 is also the blink of an eye, in the scheme of things. But as I say, the same people who insist that we are going to burn to a crisp and all the polar bears will die told us, authoritatively, that 2010 was going to be a scorcher for this very reason. So far it isn’t. So far they are very wrong. And could not be more wrong. This is why we should question their calculations and why we have the right to do so.

EU Referendum: Moonbat squeaks

Weather is not climate. All that cold, in the UK, in North America, in Asia, Russia ... don't mean nuffink.

So why do they use weather stations to measure climate? Just a thought.

C3: As Actual Evidence Mounts, IPCC & Models Appear To Have Been Totally Wrong: New Little Ice Age?

The IPCC expertise is solely focused on human CO2 as the primary climate driver. The IPCC climate models, as a result, have been designed with the same myopic focus. Yet all the recent weather conditions and longer term temperature trends indicate (and verify) the climate is not being driven by human CO2.

Q&A: Google’s Green Energy Czar [still believes in the greatest scientific fraud in human history] - NYTimes.com

[q] Google is obviously best-known as an Internet company. Why is Google involved with alternative energy in the first place?

[a] I’d say there are two reasons. One is that we use a moderate amount of energy ourselves
...
there definitely is a time horizon in the sense that to really develop the breakthroughs and innovations that are needed to deal with the climate crisis, we need to make renewable energy cheaper than coal in years, not decades.

Flashback: Google Data Center's Massive Energy Appetite | GreenerComputing.com

The Oregon facility is considered one of the jewels in Google's crown, and the company refuses to talk about the precise costs and energy demands involved. But there is clear evidence that the footprint of a centre such as The Dalles plant is enormous: industry estimates suggest that once it is running at full capacity by 2011, it could require as much as 103MW of power to run – enough to supply every home in Newcastle.

To put that number into more U.S.-centric terms, 103 megawatts is enough electricity to either:

a) Run Google's data center in The Dalles; or
b) Power the city of Oakland, Calif. for almost four months.