Roger Federer, one of the world’s greatest tennis players, may have become an unwitting spokesman for the effects of climate change on Monday at the U.S. Open.
Federer, who is ranked No. 2, seemed to struggle all night in the heat and humidity at Arthur Ashe Stadium, losing in a fourth-round upset to John Millman, an Australian ranked 55th.
“It was hot,” Federer said. It “was just one of those nights where I guess I felt I couldn’t get air; there was no circulation at all.”
This was the first time Federer, who won the U.S. Open five consecutive times from 2004 to 2008, lost to a player outside the top 50 at the tournament.
To some, the comments by Federer, 37, may sound like sour grapes. But they also underscore a growing problem: increasing nighttime temperatures.
Under climate change, overall temperatures are rising — 2018 is on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record — but the warming is not happening evenly. Summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate of summer days. Average overnight low temperatures in the United States have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
TONY HELLER aka Steve Goddard of Real Science recently checked temperature trends at Ithaca NYC as part of a rebuttal to another piece of epic NYT climate propaganda and fraud – “How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born? – The New York Times”
WATCH the blatant fraud uncovered by Heller in this MUST SEE vid:
WHILE Heller’s work on the NY area at Ithaca doesn’t explore humidity, his analysis, using USHCN offical Govt data, shows that the number of hot days over 90F are declining as CO2 increases – the opposite of what global warming CO2-theory demands. And, shock news, Heller’s data shows the exact opposite of what the failing NYTimes impugns…
New York Times Fraud At Ithaca, New York
The New York Times claims that Ithaca, New York gets about three days per year over 90 degrees, when in fact they average almost double that.
The number of 90 degree days has declined by 50% over the last 90 years, as CO2 has increased.
The New York Times claims the opposite trend.
A large percentage of New York Times reporting is fraudulent, and sometimes it is trivial to prove. They are hiding readily available historical data, reporting incorrectly on historical and present data, and claiming trends which are the exact opposite of reality. Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.
New York Times Fraud At Ithaca, New York | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
AS an Aussie, bravo to John Millman for downing the Fed! And, obviously he had to play under the same conditions as the champ. Just maybe, Millman was the better player on the ‘humid’ night in NYC and in better condition than ye olde Rog, God bless him!
AS for the failing NY Times – “Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.” – we and the empirical evidence concur!
Tony Heller with the inconvenient truth on September 3 New York historical temperatures…
Today’s Global Warming Fraud At The New York Times
Superbly written Donna.
ERICA Goode’s unhinged attack on Dr. Crockford in the NY Times is further evidence of the totalitarian and authoritarian underpinnings that have corrupted the field of climate ‘science’. – Question the preferred wisdom of the day at your own peril! – Obey, or be persecuted and have your reputation trashed! This isn’t science, this is religion. “Belief” and “Denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
WHAT would it take for activists Goode and Co. to be happy? A Polar Bear population back to 1960’s extinction levels? Sadly, I believe the answer is yes! How dare their scared ‘cow’ and mascot of climate catastrophe have grown in population from some 5,000 in the 1960’s to 25,000-30,000 at present, despite rising CO2 and diminished sea-ice extent?
INCREASING polar bear numbers, directly threaten the power of activists and their lucrative climate change scare. We can’t have that now can we Erica?
Big Picture News, Informed Analysis
SPOTLIGHT: Journalistic professionalism evaporates in front of our eyes.
BIG PICTURE: When historians document the demise of the mainstream media, an article published this week by the New York Times will make an excellent case study. Titled “Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back,” it’s written by Erica Goode who isn’t just any journalist. She’s a former Environment Editor of the Times. In 2009, she “founded and led a cluster of reporters dedicated to environmental reporting.” Currently, she’s a visiting professor at Syracuse University.
Out here in the real world, a debate exists about polar bears. Will they be adversely affected by climate change or will they continue to adapt as they have historically?
Since the future hasn’t yet arrived, it’s impossible to know whose opinions will turn out to be correct. But rather than presenting a range of perspectives…
View original post 865 more words
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
-– Ottmar Edenhofer (IPCC), November 2010
Watts Up With That?
Guest satire by David Middleton
Protesters Jeer as Trump Team Promotes Coal at U.N. Climate Talks
By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
Nov. 13, 2017
BONN, Germany — The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.
The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.
George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when…
View original post 1,272 more words
“Many of the world’s nations are simply ignoring the politics of flawed, failed and exaggerated climate alarmism claims which underlie the Paris Climate Agreement and proceeding to implement plans to meet their countries required future energy needs…”
Watts Up With That?
A recent article discussed at Watts Up With That? exposed that many of the world’s largest CO2 emitting nations are proceeding with energy policies involving the building of huge numbers of new coal plants without regard to increasing CO2 emissions completely contradicting the aims of the Paris Climate Agreement.
These nations actions clearly show the Paris Climate Agreement is meaningless in addressing global emissions and that President Trump was very wise to reject it’s oppressive provisions that were imposed on the U.S.
Supporting the story of huge new coal plant building plans by many global nations as revealed in the WUWT article is an article in the climate alarmist scheming New York Times which was forced to admit that plans are underway around the world to build over 1,600 new coal plants in the next decade with nearly half of those plants being built by Chinese Companies.
The recent WUWT…
View original post 1,224 more words
Excellent MUST read…
PA Pundits - International
By Andrew Bolt ~
I have mentioned earlier in a number of Posts how this Presidential election was followed like no other campaign has ever been covered here in Australia. In much the same manner as it was in the U.S. all the media reporting was in favour of Hillary Clinton, and virtually all Donald Trump coverage was negative. Three of the Four major TV Networks covered the results live, and for the whole day, from 9AM until after 6PM, around the time Donald Trump came out for his victory speech, and all of this happened during the day of Wednesday, in real time, taking the time difference into account between the U.S. and Australia. Since that time, when the result became obvious, even to right now, again, the coverage is similar to what it is in the U.S. How could they have got it so wrong. The…
View original post 731 more words
Reality bites. #unreliables
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
A thoughtful piece from the New York Times:
Is the global effort to combat climate change, painstakingly agreed to in Paris seven months ago, already going off the rails?
Germany, Europe’s champion for renewable energy, seems to be having second thoughts about its ambitious push to ramp up its use of renewable fuels for power generation.
Hoping to slow the burst of new renewable energy on its grid, the country eliminated an open-ended subsidy for solar and wind power and put a ceiling on additional renewable capacity.
Germany may also drop a timetable to end coal-fired generation, which still accounts for over 40 percent of its electricity, according to a report leaked from the country’s environment ministry. Instead, the government will pay billions to keep coal generators in reserve, to provide emergency power at times when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun…
View original post 1,061 more words
What other climate news does the New York Times blatantly lie about in order to advance their global warming agenda?
The New York Times is lying about climate yet again, claiming that last year was a record fire year at 10.1 million acres and it was due to climate.
Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer – The New York Times
The level of fraud is off-scale. The New York Times reported in 1938 that more than twice that many acres burned in 1937. Why didn’t Matt Richtel and Fernanda Santos research their own paper?
October 9, 1938 – NYTimes
The US Forest Service reported that five times as many acres burned in the early 1930’s
Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents
But their fraud gets much worse. When CO2 was at pre-industrial levels, forest burned almost fifteen times as much land in the US.
Outside of Alaska and California, last year was not a big fire year. The Rocky Mountains were…
View original post 31 more words
In 1988, global warming came into vogue, and the New York Times started helping to create the hockey stick by announcing that temperatures had risen steadily for a century
Temperature For World Rises Sharply In the 1980’s – NYTimes.com
This came right after the New York Times had spent 30 years reporting global cooling and a new ice age.
Science – Worrying About a New Ice Age – View Article – NYTimes.com
International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – View Article – NYTimes.com
SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com
TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com
Only 13 years earlier, the National Academy of Sciences reported that there had been no net warming in the 20th century.
The Ministry of Truth has amazing powers at making the past disappear.
View original post
So the observed “global warming” from 1978-1998 was not chaotic and precisely predicted (in retrospect) by computer simulations, yet the current 16-20 year “hiatus” is ‘chaotic’ and should not be counted because the computers and the nature gang said so.
Weather and climate agencies around the world have been almost unanimous in declaring 2014 the hottest year on record — something that has promoted considerable chagrin among climate change doubters. That’s because these “skeptics” have long sought to cast doubt on man-made global warming by pointing to an alleged global warming “pause” or “slowdown” — going on to suggest that the computerized climate models that scientists use to project future temperatures are flawed, and overestimate carbon dioxide’s warming effect.
So, is that true? Do the models consistently overestimate the warming effects of greenhouse gases like CO2?
As a recent study suggests, the answer is no. While many models didn’t predict the relatively modest surface-warming “hiatus,” it’s not because they’re biased in favor of greenhouse-gas emissions’ warming effects. Rather, researchers report in Nature, these computer simulations just struggle to predict “chaotic” (or random) short-term changes in the climate system that can temporarily add or subtract from CO2 emissions’ warming effects.
No, climate models aren’t exaggerating…
View original post 72 more words
I was floored by how much snow had already disappeared from the planet, not to mention how much was predicted to melt in my lifetime
The End of Snow? – NYTimes.com
Winter snow cover has soared to record levels over the past decade. As always, the New York Times is lying – and saying the exact opposite of the truth.
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
View original post