This Just In: Second Warmest June on Record in U.S.

By Tom Yulsman | July 8, 2015 11:55 am
Second warmest June

Record to near-record warmth prevailed in June from the Rockies to the West Coast, and 16 states in the East were much warmer than average. Nationally, it was the second warmest June on record. (Source: National Centers for Environmental Information)

I was about to write a post focusing on how the current spate of tropical cyclones in the Pacific Ocean could kick El Niño into higher gear when I saw the latest climate report for the United States. So I’ll put El Niño aside for now to focus on that.

The verdict from the National Centers for Environmental Information: the United States just experienced its second warmest June in a record stretching back 121 years. Only June 1933 was warmer.

According to the NCEI:

Above-average temperatures were widespread in the West and along the Southeast coast, where 16 states were much warmer than average. California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, andWashington were each record warm for June. Several western cities set new all-time June temperature records during an intense heatwave the second half of the month, including Boise, Idaho where the temperature soared to 110°F.

As for 2015 so far, it has been the 10th warmest January through June on record.

The unusual warmth in June was accompanied by more precipitation than normal. From the NCEI report:

This was the ninth wettest June on record, and marked the third consecutive month of above-average precipitation for the Lower 48.

Meanwhile, the Northern Hemisphere overall continues to bake. During the past week, heat records were shattered in many European cities. As I reported earlier, large swaths of Alaska and Canada have been on fire. And a dome of warmth over Greenland caused a big spike in melting at the surface of its ice sheet.

As a backdrop to all of this, the Northern Hemisphere’s oceans shattered the previous record high average temperature in May:

second warmest June

Source: NOAA


And the heat goes on. Much of the world’s oceans overall are now near or at record-high temperatures:

I’m planning to come back to this topic with my post on El Niño, the Pacific Ocean’s cyclones, and a phenomenon called the Madden-Julian Oscillation. I hope to get to that in the next few days. So please check back. In the meantime…


And lastly, for an excellent round up of what’s happening globally, see this post by Jason Samenow at the Washington Post.

  • carol12598

    If you are searching for extra cash on the side of about 50-300 bucks daily for doing simple work on your computer from home for 3-4 hrs every day then try this…

  • OWilson

    Wife to Doctor at hospital.

    “So how’s my husband?”

    “Well, last Tuesday was his third worst day this week, and his seventh worst day in the last month”.

    “But is he ok?”

    “Well, er yes, he’s just fine”.

    • Jared Smith

      no, it’s more like this
      Wife to Doctor at hospital.

      “So how’s my husband?”

      “Well, yesterday he had the second highest temperature i’ve ever seen in a patient”.

      “But is he ok?”

      “Well, er no, of course not, he’s in critical condition”.

      • OWilson

        “Really? How come, Doctor?”

        “Because “we have seriously ticked off the ocean!””

        “Oh, sounds weird, but you are the expert”

        “Yes, you don’t need a second opinion, here’s my bill”

        • Mike Richardson

          Actually, in this case, there’s been thousands of second opinions, the vast majority of which support the doctor’s prognosis. But you could play doctor yourself, or go by the opinions of a quack paid by the folks who made the patient sick in the first place. Just to carry the analogy a little further. 😉

          • OWilson

            Don’t wait around for the giant wake when the catastrophic man made global warming scam falls apart.

            The stadium will be empty and you’ll have as hard a time finding a former warmista, as you would a communist in post USSR Poland, or a Nazi in post war Germany.

            Millions, not your thousands, miraculously disappeared almost overnight, and didn’t leave their calling cards. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            You’ve picked a really good avatar, Wilson. Rhetoric over logic. Socrates was pretty good at the former, not so much at the latter. The problem is, you present it as “catastrophe,” which I haven’t, and which most scientists haven’t. But it is a problem which needs to be addressed, and which ideology might need to adjust to. I can adjust. Can you? 😉

          • OWilson

            We don’t agree there’s a “problem”.

            Maybe if there was logic and fact in your statements, I could consider bowing to the global politicians at the U.N., Al Gore, Obama, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, His Excellency Pachauri the religious, The Pope, Leonardo de Caprio and Madonna and Lady Ga Ga, Sean Penn, and the others like yourself that tell us we have a problem, and they have a solution.

            I might even agree to let them run up more debt (sorry, newspeak – Investment) that my grandchildren will be struggling to pay off.

            Trouble is they don’t carry as much weight with me as does the NOAA and NASA satellite data of the last 36 years, and counting! Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            So what about the satellite data showing warming oceans, less density (i.e. mass) in the Antarctic ice pack, and shrinking glaciers in Greenland and in continental mountain ranges, such as Alaska’s? And the data that you refer to actually does show a trend of less ice in the Arctic, though you argue that it isn’t “significant.” Overall, the data actually doesn’t support your position. So while I might not agree with Lady Ga Ga’s choice of attire, she might at least have a more sensible position regarding global warming than what you’ve put forth so far. Besides, unless your retirement’s based on stocks in fossil fuels (well, that would explain much), there are plenty of economic benefits to researching and developing alternative energy sources. Should appeal to an enterprising capitalist. :)

          • OWilson

            I’m sure you’ll all be happy together!

            As for alternative energy sources, capitalism is all over that. (see Solyndra).

            But some of us listen more to people like Ms. Curry and a certain Ms. Zarkhova and her colleagues, than your Lady Gaga, Al Gore and Michael Moore, before we invest in your scam.

            She’s telling us we’re headed for a bout of global cooling! Imagine that!

            And I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate she might be a war criminal. Lol

            I’m sure you would point that out for us.

          • Mike Richardson

            I’m sure she’s not a war criminal or employee of the Koch Brothers. In fact, after getting search results for a ballerina and a plus-size Belorussian model, I finally saw an article about her interesting work. Interesting, but as yet unproven. And one difference between the current state of our planet and during the previous mini-ice age, is that we’re now at about 400 ppm CO2, which is probably going to put a dent in the effect of a Maunder minimum this time around. But if you want to buy some ice skates for the Thames, go for it. I think I might be a bit more, well, skeptical myself. Lol. Just be careful on those skates, Wilson. 😉

          • OWilson

            I get it.
            Her work is unproven, but WE MUST ACT NOW on the basis of other, shall we say, more politically correct unproven models, LOL
            That about right?

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, there’s an update to her story. Dr. Phil Plait over on the “Bad Astronomy Blog” did a pretty decent explanation of how her work pertained to solar magnetic activity, not necessarily solar output. Additionally, the Mini-Ice Age itself was due to multiple factors, including volcanic activity, and not just a slight decrease in solar activity. Check it out yourself over at
            Fortunately, the sun’s a middle-aged spectral class G star, not prone to wild changes in output. Otherwise, we’d have bigger problems to worry about than “mini ice-ages.” And that’s one of the big factors considered in current climate models, which I’d consider more reliable at this point than the prospect of any sudden cooling. :)

          • OWilson

            I would expect nothing less from a “Slate” link.
            Seriously, she will be going through political correctness hell, with her reputation, her career, her funding threatened by the envirofascists. No stone will be left unturned, I hope she’s not had an affair, stolen an apple when she was a kid.
            Which is why I advise folks in science to go along with the political correctness of 97% their peers, and keep their skepticism and work on hold until it is culturally safe, to go public with it.
            (I tell them they are in good company with Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Darwin, who went against the conventional wisdom :))

          • Mike Richardson

            Slate hosts the blog, just as Discover hosts this one (incidentally, Dr. Plait used to have a blog on this site before moving to Slate, and he’s demonstrated a pretty good proficiency in his field, as well as dissecting irrational beliefs, left and right). That doesn’t mean that scientist posting on said site is any less reputable, if they’ve a demonstrated track record. I’m not quite as familiar with Ms. Zharkova, though I’m sure her work can stand or fall on its own merit, depending on how it stands up to the peer review process. This process, by its very nature, demands a critical eye, which is hardly the same as “political correctness hell,” a nice rhetorical invention which excuses pseudoscience more acceptable to the ideologically rigid. But I don’t have much practice playing the martyr, so maybe that’s how it’s viewed when you don’t have a strong factual basis for your worldview. Well, I wish her and you the best, and may those with the facts on their side prevail. :)

          • OWilson


          • Mike Richardson

            No, denial is when someone is incapable of looking beyond their hyperpartisan blinders and acknowledging that the facts are not on their side, and that maybe someone jumped to conclusions that could be rebutted pretty easily. Lower info folks might fall into such patterns, since they can’t rebut the actual facts, as presented in Dr. Plait’s article, and might instead point to the site hosting the article as evidence it shouldn’t be considered in the first place. No, instead they might argue that we’re facing a mini-ice age, when the circumstances of the previous over-hyped “Little Ice Age” involved factors beyond just a decrease in sunspot activity. Anything but admit a mistake. But you’d never do that, right Wilson? :)

          • OWilson

            You need a entry level primer on science and its methodology.

            “Facts” in science are never on anybody’s, “side”, any more than a so-callled god is on anybody’s side in a war, (the Ayatollah’s jihads and the Pope’s encyclicals notwithstanding.) :)

            Truth, and reality will always prevail in the end.
            Once again, ALL the previous doomsday predictions have never come to pass, while “tipping” points come and go.

            Ever wonder why that is? Lol

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Wilson: You reveal your true colors when you compare “warmists” to Nazis.

            Just for the record: I am Jewish. I grew up in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that was home to quite a few survivors of Auschwitz, all of whom had numbers tattooed on their arms. They narrowly escaped being marched into the gas chambers. So are you saying that because I accept what science is telling us about our impact on the climate — making me a “warmist” in your terminology — that I am like a Nazi?

            My request: Please stick to the facts. You seem to be intelligent, and I think you can do better than playing the Nazi card.

          • Earthling

            Climate catastrophist crusaders have been calling CAGW sceptics deniers for years, so maybe it’s time for us to return the favour.

          • OWilson

            On the other hand, you don’t seem intelligent enough, to understand I wasn’t calling warmistas communists or Nazis.

            I was talking about group and crowd behavior (at both political extremes) which IS a branch of science.

            I’ll leave it to our erstwhile moderator to delete or leave my post as is.

            (I’ve actually been to Auschwitz 4 times, and wrote about it here)

            It’s not like I was calling the President of the United States, a war criminal. You are in some pretty rarified and less than sane company with THAT one! Lol

          • OWilson

            Sorry Tom.

            I thought I was replying to Mike R. (hence my reference to “our erstwhile moderator”, you!, and the other posters enthusiasm for having G.W. Bush tried as a War Criminal.)

            Ignore my comments with my sincere apologies

          • Mike Richardson

            Boy, you didn’t step in the cow pie, you fell in face first. Lol, it’s okay, just check to see who’s posting next time. So by what you’ve said, am I to understand you meant to insult my intelligence for Tom’s observation that your analogy appeared a little, well, Godwinist? So shouldn’t you be apologizing to me, too? Anything else might imply a different standard of civility towards the moderator than your fellow posters, and I’m sure you’d want to be consistent, right? As for what I said about Bush, stating that someone who led an war against another nation on the shaky concept of a pre-emptive war might face charges of war crimes is simply a statement of fact. I don’t actually expect him to ever spend time in prison or face other sanctions, but he’s got some serious bad karma to work off. Better paint lots of puppies and kittens. 😉

          • OWilson

            A simple misunderstanding, apology made to TY because he wasn’t the one who brought up War Crimes nonsense about a former U.S. President.

            That, as I recall was you!

            That aside, if you knew anything about the law, you wouldn’t be blindsided by the defense bring in a few “mitigating factors”, Lol

            Like Clinkon’s Official policy of “Regime Change In Iraq”.

            Or the Statements of the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Albright, Pelosi et al, on the merits of going to war.

            (That might be considered, collusion, or inciting, or even taking part, when Clinton was bombing Iraq on the eve of his Impeachment vote, and the eve of Monika’s Grand Jury testimony)

            All of which took place before anybody had heard of your dear George.

            You’re welcome :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Thanks, but no thanks. I think I’d have to pass on hiring you as a lawyer if you think Clinton’s bombing Saddam in the past (when he was actively violating a no-fly zone) and others going along with the Bush administration’s war plans based on information supplied by said administration, would serve as mitigating factors to absolve him of responsibility. But I didn’t think you’d get so offended at the notion that attacking a nation without just cause might constitute a war crime. Seemed rather uncontroversial, like the notion that terrorism is bad, or that greenhouse gases might warm the earth, or perhaps that comparing opponents to Nazis is a bit extreme. But you just never know. I’ll try to leave Dubya out of the discussion in the future, and hopefully you’ll steer clear of Godwin’s Law. In the meantime, you might want to work on your Perry Mason act, Wilson. 😉

          • OWilson

            I’m glad you are recovering somewhat from your demented obsession with “Bush”, but feel free to obsess all you like, it says a lot about you.
            Either that or you are getting tired of looking foolish with your apparent gross lack of balanced knowledge of recent history. :)
            I’ll just be happy to point out reality, like, for example, which President bombed the most number of sovereign nations during his Presidency?
            None of which posed an existential threat to your U.S., by your own definition.?
            And, speaking of War Crimes, who was it who launched major bombing campaigns against these countries, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his Impeachment Vote, and the eve of Monika’s Grand Jury Testimony?
            Look it up, and learn!
            I prefer science to politics, but with you warmistas bringing it up all the time, I feel I must defend, not your Republicans or even my conservatism, but reality and common sense! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            I can’t say I’m all that concerned about Bush. But if we’re talking obsession, you do seem to have a lot to say about the Clintons, eh? Lol, well, I guess they might have been interesting, particularly if you wanted to see what a relatively successful administration looks like. But I am glad to see you’ve taken up the mantle of “Defender of Reality.” Even if it does seem like having Donald Trump acting as an ambassador of good will to Latin America. Or good taste, for that matter. And that hairpiece? Oh well, I wouldn’t like for that to seem like an obsession or anything. G’night Wilson. :)

          • OWilson

            You “can’t say…..” Lol, but you are the only one who brings up Bush continually here. Did you know that? Do one of those “word searches” you are fond of, Lol.

            Now it’s Trump and his hair?

            Low info stuff indeed!

            While this is going on?

            (Update: In addition to the FOI lawsuit to get details of Clintons frequent travels to his pedophile friend’s Orgy Island, on a plane dubbed the “Lolita Express”, with Secret Service personnel, both Clintons are now being legally forced to make a “legal deposition”, in an unrelated email case, as the Clinton saga continues into another century)

            With all that going on, I’m sure only low info voters get their panties in a knot over Trump’s hair.

            After all, here’s nothing wrong with a little cosmetic enhancement, like a little lift and tuck here, and a little botox there. Ask the Clintons and Heinz-Kerry . Lol,

          • OWilson

            See my abject apology below!

  • IVIaverick

    IF it was warmer in 1933, then, comparing apples to apples, then it was MUCH warmer in 1933 (talking CO2-related warming) because WE have the effects of Urbanization added to our current readings. In the summer is it hotter if you stand in the middle of a parking lot or in the middle of a field? The Wright Brothers had their first flight in 1903 and in the 1930’s there WERE some airports but many were grass fields; it wasn’t until after WWII that we went on a great airport-building spree, paving over large section of land around cities. Also, during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950, they passed the Federal Highway Act which added additional paved roads around cities and between them. So, just by urbanization it SHOULD be hotter. Hell, even in the winter when it snows we scrape the airports and roads to make them hotter than they would have normally been in the 1930’s. And the kicker? Where are the weather stations located today? At the airports closer to that Urbanization Heat Source.

    • OWilson


      Don’t make them think!

      It hurts their brains. Just leave it all to the “experts” :)

      But don’t worry, if this reasoning gets out, look for more “adjustments”!

      “Damn Professor, we missed that one”!

    • Jared Smith

      oh wow! maverick! you genius! you’ve thought of something no one has ever thought of before. you are smarter than all of the thousands of scientists whose job it is to account for as many variables as possible. oh… wait a minute… i just remembered. they’ve been factoring in the urban heat island effect for years! NO! for DECADES! Where have you been!

      • Earthling

        Can you give one example of where the HIE was factored in?
        Thought not.

      • IVIaverick

        I suspect you are one of those paid Obamabot posters who add nothing to the discussion but just dissemble (lie.) Of course the Heat Island Effect has NOT been factored into the picture. Needless to say the numbers HAVE been doctored though (look up Climategate.) The reading HAVE been changed but just the opposite of what some kind of HIE adjustment would call for. This, in effect, just further exaggerates a non-existent current heating trend: the current readings have been bumped up and the old numbers (from the 1930’s have been snuck down.) Another factor that is missing (Google Ross McKitrick’s chart) is that prior to 1990 (when the Soviet Union fell apart) there were approximately 15,000 world-wide readings which were averaged to come up with the Earth average number. But when the Soviets (think cold areas) broke up, we lost 9,000 reporting stations, which up to that point had been pulling the average down. So, the remaining (after 1990) 6,000 world-wide reading again were artificially higher, as a result, when comparing them to the 1930, for instance, numbers.

        • JWrenn
          • IVIaverick

            Well, studied in terms of air pollution and in terms of local effects. But in evaluating IF some adjustment needs to made to the reading NOW versus in the 30’s for instance, no this has not been studied. All it says is that the current readings are checked against other local readings to see if they are out-of-line with current conditions in the general area (some of these may be away from strictly-speaking urban areas.) The point is that Urbanization heating (heat island effects) can have a wide-ranging warming trend as that heated air moves further east. There STILL is a warming trend today, versus the 1930’s for instance, having nothing to do with “Global Warming” which is supposed to mean CO2 trapping much more heat.because it’s simply in higher concentrations It’s a sensitivity question and always has been. The “cures” for it, reducing industrial production are misguided AND political.

          • JWrenn

            “But in evaluating IF some adjustment needs to made to the reading NOW
            versus in the 30’s for instance, no this has not been studied” I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

            There are papers written about it. It is a local effect, but it effects so many areas that it would effect the overall data. Still it is not a new idea, and it has been studied.

          • IVIaverick

            The claim of “Global Warming” is supposed to be as a result of increased concentrations of CO2. If the question IS “Was it warmer, for the CO2 comparison, in the 1930’s or now,” the HIE (Heat Island Effect) needs to be discounted. In other words, the HIE needs to be deducted from the current reading OR needs to be added to the 1930 numbers. So, far the only adjustments I’ve seen (I don’t know their attributed purpose but they were part of Climategate) do just the opposite (add to the current readings or lower the 1930 readings.) So, as far as I can see it WAS actually warmer in the 1930’s (comparing CO2 heating numbers) and the numbers reported for recent periods DO have a HIE component. This might be why the satellite reading clearly show no warming for the past 18 or so months.

    • guillermina.ryals
  • Mark Stephens

    That’s interesting.. We’ve been cooler here in Colorado than previous years, in fact the coolest summer I remember here since 1979. Here in Denver we’re in the low 60’s whereas we are normally in the 80’s to low 90’s.

    • Jared Smith

      That’s why it’s called global warming and not colorado warming. i just told owilson the same thing. we are talking about CLIMATE not WEATHER. both of you back up your ludicrous claims with one example that is caused by WEATHER. Please do the earth a favor and learn the difference.

      • Earthling

        If it’s not warming in Colorado, it isn’t glowbull warming.

      • GrndLkNatv

        Jared, really? So you trust these people after the government has admitted they have doctored the numbers? I have some beach property to sell you and your friends.. BTW, who cares about Global Warming? You afraid to die? You worried about it? People with money don’t care what you think, even Al Gore flies his jet around the world laughing at you.

  • OWilson

    Funny, with all the dire handwringing, they seem to have forgotten the “global” in global warming.

    One month in one country has record heat?

    (and they’ve only had satellites for the last 35 years or so?)

  • OWilson

    This just in!
    “The Sun Beckons Mini Ice Age

    Around 500 astronomers and space scientists gathered at Venue Cymru in Llandudno, Wales, from 5-9 July, for the Royal Astronomical Society National Astronomy Meeting 2015 (NAM2015, Cyfarfod Seryddiaeth Cenedlaethol 2015). The conference is the largest regular professional astronomy event in the UK and saw leading researchers from around the world presenting the latest work in a variety of fields. Science writer and editor Kulvinder Singh Chadha presents his fourth and final report from the last day of the event:

    Like the enigmatic, eponymous character from Doctor Who our Sun may have two hearts. A new model of the Sun’s interior is producing predictions of its behaviour with unprecedented accuracy; predictions with interesting consequences for Earth. Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University presented results for a new model of the Sun’s interior dynamo in a talk at NAM2015.

    The model predicts that the magnetic wave pairs will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then during Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, cancelling one another out. This will cause a significant reduction in solar activity. “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” says Zharkova.”
    (For low info voters, a “Maunder Minimum” was present during the last “mini ice age”, where the rivers in Europe froze over and Winter Fairs were held on the frozen Thames.
    Leave your SUV running overnight, we must act, NOW!

    • Mike Richardson

      Now Wilson, be sure and remind some of those “low info” (R) folks who might listen to you to crack the garage doors when they leave the SUVs running overnight. It’d be a real tragedy if they asphyxiated following your advice out of spite to the rest of us. Lol. Careful what you tell folks to do, since some might take you seriously. Keep it entertaining and less banal, as always, my man. 😉

      • OWilson

        Don’t worry, dearie.

        The R voters are downright ornery about others telling then what to do, and how to think. They are hard to confine to illiterate, crime infested, gangbanging plantation ghettos.

        That’s why you have a score or so of them running for POTUS, as opposed to your ruler by divine right, the coronation queen herself. :)

        • Mike Richardson

          Sorry if you interpreted the (R) as a symbol for “Republican” affiliation. I was trying to represent that trademark symbol for your signature term, “low info …” Actually, I try to avoid broad generalizations (such as “ganbanging plantation ghettoes”). Sure, I’m not much impressed with the current crop of their presidential candidates, but I’ve plenty of Republican friends and family — you really can’t avoid that, living in the South. So I’m not trying to keep trashing them, as you seem rather intent on doing with the Clintons or anyone left of center. Nor am I trying to get you kicked off of the blog, as you do keep it entertaining around here. And as a conservative, I’d expect you to realize, you’re only responsible for your own actions — actually a value you and I likely agree on. But I have to say, if you consider me a radical, that’s a very broad interpretation of the term. Seems more appropriate for anarchists, communists, and members of anti-government militias, groups I’ve never had a desire to associate with. I think I can avoid any radical suggestions on this site, and perhaps you can, too. Good evening, Wilson. :)

          • OWilson

            I usually stick to facts and science, I’m usually polite, and respectful of knowledgeable folks, but being a “denier”, I often receive hostile and defamatory comments, my mental health and sanity is often questioned, not to mention my conservatism, Lol.
            I learned early to call out bullies, so I take what comes and return it with a little salsa, so to speak. :)
            I find warmistas love to berate others, but have surprisingly thin skins themselves, and I have fun with that.
            I grew up with a profound respect for science, as being mostly, so I absolutely hate to see it being manipulated for political gain.

          • OWilson

            Although, your Orwellian newspeak is rapidly replacing common meanings in language, I’m sure that it is only in your low info neighborhood where (R) in the context of voters, doesn’t mean “Republican Affiliation”. Lol.

            And for that you get the Allinsky Award of the Month. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            So you decided your first response to me was too respectful, restrained, and rational (ooh, that’s a lot of words with “R”). I’ll admit it may have been a lame attempt on my part to demonstrate the repetitious use of the phrase, but it is what it is. You can interpret it as you like, as you’ve a well-demonstrated proficiency at re-interpreting less ambiguous information. But do you really think repeatedly calling those who don’t see things your way “low info,” or looking down on a certain group you refer to as denizens of “the gangbanging ghettos” is reflecting well on you? Well, if you think that’s working for you, keep on keeping on. But I was trying to offer a little constructive criticism, for what it’s worth. But bravo to you — you used both “low info” and a Saul Alinsky reference in the same post! That’s gotta earn you some street cred with some of the younger impressionable conservatives here. Unless they actually are capable of looking at things in context, and realize I’m not really the radical here. Well, here’s to independent thought. 😉

          • OWilson

            My contempt is reserved for those who would keep a certain population in urban ghetto pens, stir up hate against their fellow citizens, deprive them of literacy, and even add more illiterate and illegals to the mix, just to milk them for votes.

            They are the real enemy of “the people”.

          • Mike Richardson

            Then your contempt should be a little more bipartisan. In America, at least, our schools are funded based on local taxes (usually), a system that ends up depriving both poor urban and rural districts of the same kind of funding that the more affluent districts get. Poorer schools are less likely to produce literate voters. So who do you think is more likely to vote against equal funding for school districts based on population instead of tax base? Conservatives or liberals? As far as racial animosity goes, I’ve seen that used to divide and conquer quite well in the South, keeping the region reliably “red.” Which group has benefitted from that? Regarding illegals, a lot of the ones who’ve been encouraging illegal immigration are conservatives looking for cheaper labor for their businesses. It hasn’t just been a matter of one side trying to bolster its voting rolls (besides, illegals can’t vote, and people who are illiterate or barely literate are less likely to vote, not more). That’s an overly simplistic view of problem that could use more constructive input from both parties in this country.

          • OWilson

            My contempt is directed to people like you who rationalize and perpetuate the obscenity!

          • Mike Richardson

            You seem to be confusing “rationalizing” with rational thought, something else for which you’ve shown a fair amount of contempt. Just a thought, but the whole being contemptuous thing probably isn’t helping you win over too many people. Might want to work on a more positive outlook. 😉

          • OWilson

            I’m not interested in “winning people over” Lol
            That’s not my responsibility, and besides, nobody asked me.
            I’m just here to post my opinion on Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate change, or whatever they are calling it, these days! :)

  • SayWhat?

    Who gives a damn? Wish the hell some global warming would come here. I live in Buffalo – bring it on. See all the green on the map? I live in the middle of it. And that’s right after the coldest 2 winters I’ve seen since…. oh yeah back in the 70’s and 80’s when the experts were predicting an ice age. We can use a little heat up here. Seems to me there’s more green than red on that map anyways. The northeast’s “climate” – not “weather” -needs some of that red. And silly little Simon Donner tweeting about the color of the ocean map. Maybe we should color it blue so that it doesn’t upset him so much – make the cold parts pink or something. In his mind he apparently sees the ocean as it is rendered on paper.
    On another note:
    Won’t we be able to grow more food when Canada and Russia and Greenland can be farmed more effectively? I dunno, but I hate snow – wouldn’t mind living in a world with larger temperate zones, more tropical zones and less freaking freezing my chestnuts off zones!

    As for my kids and their kids, they’ll adapt. And if the Earth goes into a runaway greenhouse effect thing and turns into Venus the second – who will be left to give a damn?!

    • OWilson

      Humans have thrived in all temperature zones, jungle, desert, Arctic, ocean, and everywhere in between. It defines us as humans. It’s what we do!

      (But when they become affluent, most folks head for the warmth, not the cold. :)



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar