But the flaws in the study are obvious: they didn’t have Phil Jones lose all the original data, and they forgot to have Michael Mann make the Medieval Warm Period disappear.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html

And in the category of  “stupid stuff experts say”:

“It’s not possible to simply move people living in highly urbanised areas to new land, says Naomi Biribo of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia”

Yup, you’re right Professor. TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to move people to new places to live. Why, in the whole history of mankind no one has EVER migrated to a new place to live due to bad living conditions in the old homeland! We humans prefer to die in place rather than move! Adapt? Hell no, we won’t go!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64827

Global warming causes cancer and mental illness … right. Please note, though, the real purpose of this utterly speculative piece of non-scientific buffoonery is to convince the government to spend money to investigate the claim. Wonder who would be lining up to scarf up those “research” dollars?

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.

5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

According to this Reuters report

Six people have been killed in three days by icicles falling from buildings in a central Russian region, ITAR-TASS news agency reported Tuesday.

A couple of days ago Palm Springs was 85 degrees.

Clearly, more proof of man-made global warming.

Science says otherwise. A recent study concluded more rain comes down mid-week than on weekends:

The study was carried out by atmospheric scientist Thomas Bell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and his colleagues. They looked at data collected by NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite from 1998 to 2005. This method has advantages over rain data collected with ground-based gauges that can vary from one gauge site to the next.

They found it rains on average more between Tuesday and Thursday than from Saturday through Monday. The clearest day of the week was Saturday, with nearly twice the rainfall on the wettest day, Tuesday afternoon.