Mashable reported that “June was the warmest June ever recorded.” This is a classic example of hysterical climate propaganda.

First of all, I am grateful for articles such as this, for it provides an opportunity to showcae the other side of the argument. One is never going to convince agenda driven zealots bent on destroying anyone in their way of ones point, However for those curious enough to look you may be able to see why there is skepticism over the issue of co2 now being the climate control knob

And of course the predictable sources will attack, but for those of you with open minds and hearts, perhaps it will stoke your curiosity

Let us take a look at some of the highlights from that June was the warmest on record according to NASA GISS:

​First of all, We had no way of measuring temps AS accurately before the satellite era as we do now.

In the Satellite era, June looked like this, 2cnd warmest on NCEP CFSR:

​ The map is different looking that the version above.. It shows that warm outdueled the cold, but there were areas of widespread cool. This is an apple to apple comparison, its based on the initialization of the model since 1981. The gold standard is Dr Roy Spencers UAH site. But the one above the NCEP CFSR a) has no scale at least not one the author showed, , and it is against records dating back to the 1800s, with periods that have been reanalyzed down, questionable thermometers and the elimination of Russian weather stations in rural areas where its coldest after the fall of the Soviet Union. Not to mention urban heat islands But the point is in the satellite era its the second warmest on this scale. You can plainly see 2002 was warmer, over .34C:

​ So if there is a such a jump going on, why was 2002 warmer, almost the same distance behind the super nino of 97-98 ( 4 years) as we are behind the recent super nino . It suggests there is a top being reached. I have shown many times and explained, how water vapor is distorting temps in the coldest, driest areas, That is plain to see in the arctic, where once again summer temps are near average and are not warming:

There is no increase in summer temps, its all in winter where extra WV leads to more clouds and more snow but higher temperatures You can see the lions share of warming is because of winter warmth if you just look at the facts ( Blue line winter, red summer, black overall, obviously distorted because of the winter warmth.)

Even with it warming in the winter, its still frigid in the winter:

​You can look at the global temps as a gradual rise, or a step-up function responding to large scale input of water vapor from Super Ninos that lead to, in a long term sense, tiny increases in WV, but because of the nature of water vapor, the biggest warming is where its coldest and driest:

I have said many times though, that as long as the planet keeps warming, the co2 people will push their agenda loudly and in a way to cause concern. But they have that right, The question is will people look at the opposite side of the issue.

Now let us take some of the points in the article, as it would be too exhausting to look at all of it. But I think you will see my point:

I will start with the last one first, As you can see from the above chart, the arctic IS NOT ON FIRE. Its warmer than average in the winter, and it is not warming in the summer. Its very warm this summer in northern Siberia, true but arctic tempe are not, and in fact actual CFSV2 temps have gone below normal on the analysis here for July:

But that terminology is used and it is highly distorted. Its still frigid in the arctic in the winter, just not as frigid as it used to be.

Lets go back to point one, on California wildfires. If we look at the longer term of wildfires, the chart:

​But the statement, though correct since 30 years ago, fails to point out that there was a major min in wildfires at the start of that period 30 year period. But in the longer term, Wildfires are nowhere near what they were in the 30s when co2 levels were much lower. So how can co2 be the cause now, if, at a much lower period, there were more wildfires? The second part is complete nonsense. California is not baking dry, in fact, OPPOSITE of what these outlets were claiming several years ago, droughts in California and the plains have reversed completely, a predictable natural occurrence. California in the summer gets dry and hot away from the coast, with occasional surges into the coastal areas, no matter what the pattern, so if there has been a lot of winter or spring rain, extra vegetation will dry out and add potential fuel.

The second point on Greenland is a distortion, This has been a warm year in Greenland. I was saying in the spring that the last 2 years of increase would get reversed this year, In fact the warmth of the planet and the example of Greenland are examples of why you can’t assume that a) low solar means instant cooling or b) Greenland was just going to continue adding snow like the past 2 years. In some cases my side of the AGW issue simply does the same as the other side, point to short term effects as evidence they are right, but you can see by Greenland Ice Core samples, Greenland was far warmer in the previous history, than it is now.

In fact, the retreat of the Pedersen Glacier in Alaska is revealing a thousand-year-old forest which coincides with the last warm period on Greenland, suggesting that the entire arctic was warm around the year 1000, and warmer than it is now.

You can also see where the current “Hockey stick” of temps rates against other times.

Point 3. This is an amazing claim of being right about AGW for 3 reasons 1) ITS EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS BEING PUSHED BACK IN 2013. Remember the new Perma drought dust bowl that was based on the building heat ridge that would show up over the US because of AGW? How does the opposite happen and you use it as evidence for your point? Its because of point , 2) They are amazingly unaware of what wet and warm means, vs dry and warm, When you had the scorching hot summers of the 1930s, it meant it was drier overall but WARMER ALOFT, so that condensation processes were less. Hence much less rain. And co2 was much less in the 1930s, When its wet like it is in the mid-latitudes it means increased WV, it means the troposphere as a whole is resisting the warming, and by doing so condensation processes are enhanced. In addition, large scale drying is showing up over the tropics above 20k feet, where it was supposed to be getting more moist with the trapping heat spot idea.

Both these are opposite of the AGW missive as is the increase in NHEM snowfall:

​

Every meteorologist around my age knows the old adage, never trust a warm-up that starts with rain to last long. The reason that is true it means something is resisting the warm air. In a large sense, the heavy US precip is a similar signal. There is resistance to the warming.

A classic example of how water vapor affects low temperatures more than high temperatures can be seen here in the June temps, Max temps:

​

are held down more than min temps:



They know no one is going to call them out, This article is classic, Any mention of the idea that there is more snow in the NHEM, opposite the missive being pushed or no perma drought. THE U.S. IS SETTING RECORDS FOR THE OPPOSITE!

In the coming days, there will be a scorching heatwave, the high point of the summer IMO, in the east.

This will make news of course and more climate hysteria, Lurking behind it is a 10-15 day period of cooler than average in much of the east and plains:

​a return to the June pattern. But the examples of hysteria and weaponization of the weather are obvious. I never ask people to believe me, I do ask them to try to look at the other side of the issue. In fact, I am like that so much so, I think the people opposite my idea have a reason to push their ideas, I disagree with the cause of all this, and objective people, even if they don’t agree with me, can at least see some of the many things I am looking at that makes me skeptical.

Lost in the article was the fact that in spite of the warm June, the western Pacific typhoon season which runs all year round, is going thru one of their quietest periods, if not the quietest, since March 1st on record . You will never hear about that, or the major cold that is dominating much of eastern Europe Is man causing the lack of activity and the cold:

After the major cold May in much of western Europe. Instead, its a one-sided, agenda pushed argument. And it is going to get worse. The only thing I ask of people is that they look at both sides of the issues, The AGW side does not want that, and wants to shut the conversation down, but if you look , there are 2 sides to the story.

Look here are the facts, There has never been a better time to be alive on this planet because of quality of life, made possible by fossil fuels Its why past periods of warmth were referred to as climate optimums:

Climate deaths are plummeting:​

Personal GDP and life expectancy are “hockey stick” of improvement:

more food is being grown than ever:

and for good reason, the earth is greener than its ever been in the satellite era:



​Does this look a planet on fire or a planet that is truly in a green movement, and needs no draconian actions by man to continue the improvement of life for all? The conclusion is that this is not about climate and weather, it is about using them to further a political agenda. Keep telling people how bad it is, if they don’t look at the counter-arguments, or are prevented from hearing them by the Alinsky like tactics of Isolate, demonize and destroy, then the end is predictable. And it’s not positive.