From Rhino Times Reader Al Hare
This morning May 28th, WGHP TV declared, in grave and serious tones, that this was North Carolina “Heat Awareness Week”, as recently proclaimed by our Governor Josh Stein (D).
They even presented the propaganda with a straight face, when just the previous evening, their Chief Meteorologist had informed us that the day before had the lowest high temperature in recorded history. May 27’s high was 57 Degrees, the lowest High since records began in 1903.
It was the coldest May 27th in at least 122 years.
Don’t you love it when liberals are confronted with reality?
– Alvis Hare
Somebody needs to look up the difference between weather and climate.
Somebody needs to accept that occasionally he’s wrong.
You will one day. Start by googling the difference between weather and climate.
You can’t refute anything in my Letter – because it’s 100% factually true. You just refuse to let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Typical liberal.
Your letter is a weather report. Good for you. It has no impact on climate change which is your erroneous assumption.
Don’t hurt yourself.
Wait, you are claiming liberals ignore facts? Lol, facts on climate change are clear and generated by highly skilled scientists. Conservatives and their anti-science mentality require followers ignore facts. Same with vaccines. The facts are well known and well documented but conspiracy minded conservatives are trained to ignore facts and support conspiracy theories based on lies and misinformation.
But you go ahead and think changes in the weather disprove climate science. Which cracks me you have doubled down on such ignorance.
But you are a perfect example of a liberal who ignores facts, and this is a good example of you doing so. Such real world data would make any honest person re-examine their beliefs, but you cannot do so because you fear that it might prove you wrong.
You must be deeply insecure.
Get real. Return to the conservative beliefs you previously held. Your new cult is profoundly corrupt.
The real fact is that weather will continue to have variation. And that does not invalidate global warming. In your little world of willful ignorance do think climate change means we won’t have cold snaps any longer? That is the fact you are choosing the ignore.
Again, look up the difference between weather and climate. You might learn something (unless that is too scary for you).
COLDEST DAY IN AT LEAST 122 YEARS.
FACT.
You are talking about a day. climate is the average of the year and or decade. Don’t hurt yourself keeping up with the adults that understand math and science.
Professor Chris is a really condescending jerk, isn’t he?
To people who think a weather event disproves climate science and just double down on that ignorance when their error in logic is pointed out. Yes. Yea I am.
It’s not “a weather event” – it is a record breaking event. Actually two : the record low temp. of 2025 AND the record high temp. of 1914.
Square that circle in your fantasy world, buddy.
And try not to be so disagreeable when you disagree. It makes you look like a jerk – which you have at least confessed to.
We can all agree on that.
A single data point is still a single data point. No matter if it is a record or near the mean. A record is only an incremental difference. Know what the next to lowest high temperature was for the month of May in Guilford County? I was a only 2 degree difference. This has no impact on climate’s analysis of the change in the mean over thousands of data points.
Your lack of care for actually understanding even the basics of how climate science works or what it means shows a lack of credibility of your criticism. Data analysis is never concerned with a single point of data no matter it being a record or not. The analysis is about the change in the mean. If you don’t want to understand that go ahead and you be you. But it makes you look foolish, ignorant and stubborn by doubling down on your lack of understanding.
Good luck
——-
As Sherlock Holmes once famously said to Dr. Watson, “Watson, you have an amazing capacity for observing the obvious” . And like Dr. Watson, you believe your commentary is brilliant, when it is nothing more than a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.
Yeah it is weird Al Hare can’t understand it.
We’ve been bombarded with doomsday predictions from so-called “experts” and scientists for decades.
ABC News published the following predictions:
Global warming has been renamed climate change to cover and blame hot, cold, dry, and wet conditions.
It was never about saving the planet but power, control, and money. If you were a skeptic or asked for more scientific proof, you were demonized and called a climate denier.
So-called climate scientists, with their free money grants and government bureaucrats, made catastrophic predictions about the environment that never materialized. These failed predictions should prompt us to question the credibility of these so-called scientific experts.
In 1970, S. Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995.
In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, warned that there would be no more crude oil and that none of our land would be usable for agriculture by 2000.
In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by 1980, 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, and all ocean life would perish.
In 1970, North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter predicted that the “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire world will be in famine” by 2000.
In 1971, Dr. S. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted a new ice age within 50 years.
In 1975, Stanford biologist Ehrlich warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years.
In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned that major European cities would be underwater by 2020.
And let’s not forget the guy who invented the internet, who, in 2009, eco-alarmist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014. In 2006: “Within the decade, there will be no more snow on Kilimanjaro” – Al Gore
Of course, all of these predictions were wrong.
Hopefully, the Green New Deal stays buried for good.
Don’t confuse media blowing up predictions (they love to focus on worst case scenarios). The actual climate models have been rather accurate in predicting the rate of climate change / warming and its impacts. Studies have shown that even older models, dating back to the 1970s, accurately predicted the general trend of global temperature increases over the past few decades.
While some specific regional variations or extreme events may not be perfectly predicted, climate models generally capture the broad trends of climate change, including warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and changes in precipitation patterns.
Climate models are routinely hindcasted, meaning they are run with past conditions to see if they can reproduce observed climate changes. that fact that models can accurately reproduced the 20th-century warming trend, including periods of natural variability, build confidence in their ability to project the future changes and impacts.
Climate change deniers use a strawman argument claiming that past models projected things they never projected as a way of spreading misinformation. Seems like you have bought into that lie.
Just looking up the false quotes you provided:
For example, there is no record of Al Core claiming that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro within a decade. When you google that quote you see that it was falsely attributed to him in a classic strawman lie. Note that he did use the shrinking glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro as a visual example of global warming in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The ICE AGE claim by Dr S Rasool is a long-ago debunked claim: In 1971, while Dr. S. Rasool and S.H. Schneider did explore the possibility of an ice age within 50 years, their research focused on the potential impact of increased atmospheric aerosol and carbon dioxide on global climate. They found that a significant increase in aerosols could potentially reduce surface temperatures and trigger an ice age if sustained, but their work didn’t explicitly predict a specific timeframe. The idea that a new ice age could arrive soon was more related to the cyclical nature of ice age cycles, which are understood to occur over much longer timescales, on the order of tens of thousands of years.
The Ehrlich quote is another misrepresentation used by Climate deniers: Paul Ehrlich’s predictions in the 1970s were not that 90% of tropical rainforests and 50% of species would disappear within 30 years. Ehrlich’s book, “The Population Bomb” (published in 1968), made various apocalyptic predictions, including widespread starvation and ecological collapse, but these were not specific to tropical rainforests or a 50% species extinction rate. While Ehrlich did warn about the potential for significant environmental damage due to overpopulation and unsustainable practices, his forecasts were more general and did not include those specific figures. (ie he didn’t use a climate model)
The pentagon study is yet another strawman analysis that miss frames the purpose of the analysis: They were predicting IF an abrupt climate change scenario occurred what would be its implications for United States National Security,” It was a scenario-based analysis meant to explore potential impacts of sudden climate change, not a definite prediction.
The funniest one is your quote by Peter Gunter. Yes, he made a wildly inaccurate prediction (happens all the time) but note that he is NOT a climate scientist. Peter A. Gunther was completing his first year in the faculty of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at North Texas State University when he wrote his book. LOL so while an accurate quote it is more confirmation that climate predictions should be left to climate scientists.
Key is to always research and make sure the claims you find that fit your narrative are actually true and properly represented. It is easy to get sucked in and repeat some things that sound right only because it fits your narrative. I have made this mistake myself.
Climate change is real. Climate change is an issue that if not addressed will destabilized global system, climate change is man made. Happy to provide source, evidence, and data to help you understand there three facts siting actual climate scientists.
But you be you.
Wow.
Chris sure is a master debater.
Careful here You’ll get Chris riled up.
Yup.
I’m old enough that I still remember being scared as a boy in the late 70’s by “The Coming Ice Age”. i vividly remember a TIME Magazine cover and in depth scientific article saying that we were about to be plunged into a New Ice Age.
So much for “science”….
Science never said that….media isn’t science. But you be you
But the media you reference IS science? My God, you’re a hypocrite.
Arrogant too. Who made you the spokesman for what “science says”?
You have no understanding of what “science” is, or how it works. You think it’s some monolithic unchanging body of knowledge which must be revered, and cannot be challenged. You’re an idiot.
I mentioned no media other than to refute your false narratives around claims that were never made.
Yes he is among other things, wanker, hypocrite, liberal buttwipe, etc etc.
Chris : Exactly! You “mention media” and they are legitimate! Conservatives mention media and they are illegitimate!
Perfect example of you being a hypocrite.
Are you saying Media doesn’t blow things out of proportion for clicks? Weird. I thought that was the one thing left and right both agreed upon.
I notice that Al Hare has no counter argument to any of the factual points about climate science I have shared. Not shocked really as that would require him to choose to learn versus keeping his head in anti-science echo chambers that makes him so comfortable with ignorance.
But you be you.
Don’t put words in my mouth, you little prick.
I didn’t. The “?” at the end of the sentence indicates that it is a question.
salt life,
Nice research job. Congrats.
You mean nice repeating from an anti climate website. LOL, he clearly didn’t research any of his claims as none of them were true (except the guy who wasn’t a climate scientist at all).
The Green New Deal has faded from the spotlight. Good riddance to that nonsense. There was a time when it dominated the headlines, with environmental crackpots warning of a global apocalypse. It was a mostly failed political stunt.
As the truth began to surface, it became clear that the Green New Deal was not a noble environmental endeavor but a political ploy. The reckless expenditure of billions, with predictions of future costs soaring into the trillions, was a blatant misuse of public funds. It was a scheme to exert government control over industries and individuals, raise taxes, and impose unrealistic timelines, all under the guise of environmental salvation.
The Green New Deal was a masterclass in deception. It was less about environmental preservation and more about seizing control of industries, increasing taxes, and promoting massive government overreach.
Thomas Donohue, former chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the Green New Deal was a Trojan horse for socialism. The proposal’s ultimate objective was to give the government unprecedented power over people’s lives and our economy.
It was never about planting trees or cleaning up pollution — it was about controlling energy, transportation, housing, and food production. Progressive Democrats wanted to eliminate gas cars, force everyone into public transit, and dismantle the energy industry, all while driving up costs for ordinary Americans.
The politicians pushing it the hardest still lived in their mansions, flew private jets, and racked up massive carbon footprints while telling the rest of us to cut back. This blatant hypocrisy, the stark contrast between their actions and words, indicates their motives are not as noble as they claim.
Yet every time their predictions flop, they move the goalposts and expect everyone to forget. Meanwhile, they rake in billions in government grants, push their green agendas, and control significant industries, while working-class Americans foot the bill.
The masterclass in deception is the anti-climate science movement funded by big oil. No different than the lies behind big tobacco.
The rapid warming we’re seeing now can’t be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades. Global temperatures are now at their highest since records began. In fact, the 10 warmest years on Earth, since 1880, have occurred since 2014. While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
PS
During that broadcast I also noticed that the Record High for May 28th happened in 1914. The recorded high temperature in Greensboro on May 28th, 1914 was 98 Degrees. Scorching hot! In May! One hundred and eleven years ago! And that was before “Global Warming” had been invented….
We are being sold a crock.
Global warming is causing the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise which, in turn, is causing changes in our natural climate systems. These changes are making all sorts of extreme weather events more likely and more severe, including more intense droughts, heatwaves and hurricanes but also, strangely, an increased potential for more severe cold weather events
There is an important distinction between weather and climate. Weather refers to short-term changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and represents things such as temperature, rain and cloudiness. Climate refers to longer-term changes in the Earth’s atmosphere over extended periods of time. Short-term changes in the weather will continue and that is why we can still experience cold snaps, despite the fact that the Earth’s temperature is warming. On top of this, we will keep on experiencing natural seasonal variations as the Earth orbits around the sun, so winter will continue to feel cooler than summer, even though the overall temperature is higher than it was 100 years ago.
Due to where we are in the world, the UK and Ireland are likely to get more wind and rain as a result of climate change, while New York could see more snow. The complex interaction between factors in the Earth’s climate makes extreme weather events, both hot and cold, more unpredictable and impactful.
“Professor Chris” likes holding forth, doesn’t he? Even though it’s vacuous tripe.
What is it that everyone calls him…?
Happy to provide sources for all the facts I provided.
It is weird that the conservative mind now thinks calling someone a professor an insult. Says a lot doesn’t it.
———-
“Professor Chris”.
Pompous, pedantic, and pretentious. Suits you.
A wanker.
It’s all going to be a moot argument once the next meteor, solar flare, super volcano, etc. major event happens. Humans think too much of themselves in the grand scheme of things. Heck, a few extra volcanic eruptions in a year will cool the earth dramatically. Just look up “the little ice age” and then we can all move along from this waste of time debate.
I largely agree Don, but it’s great fun to point out the conflicts and contradictions within liberal theology. They fuss and fret over humanity possibly causing an infinitesimal change in the World’s climate, because they have been brainwashed to believe this.
Salt Life pointed out that the whole environmentalist movement is a mechanism to impose left wing globalist objectives. Rush Limbaugh called them watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.
That’s why they get so angry when you point out that their predictions and theories all turn out to be just plain wrong. It’s like a cult.
Your ignoring all of my counter arguments says a lot about your willful ignorance. Sad really.
But you be you.
Why don’t you just go do something physically impossible to yourself?
PS Your counter arguments are spurious and specious.
Why don’t you just accept reality?
Don’t have a real argument so just say ‘na uh’.
LMAO
Classic head-in-sand approach when challenged with real information.
Real Information : COLDEST DAY IN 122 YEARS.
* Somebody here definitely has his head in the sand – but it’s not me. I feel sorry for you.
A day doesn’t make the climate. Again, I ask the moron, do you think that climate change means we don’t still have cold snaps? Do you think one day has such an impact on average temperatures that we are now magically cooling? Maybe somebody should study 3rd grade math again. LMAO
Don’t be so rude and offensive. No wonder you’re so disliked.
Do you think that actual real world data should be casually dismissed because it doesn’t fit with your precious theories? Your theories are wrong; just accept it.
Yes, a single data point is irrelevant to the conversation of climate change which looks at the mean of global temperatures over time. Is the math too complicated for you and Al Hare to understand? If you have thousands of data points, no single data point changes the conclusions from the trend of the mean.
Hense, weather and climate are two very different topics.
Gosh thanks for pointing out the obvious!
Hense (sic), you must be so, so smart…. LOL ! LOL!
Says the guy who wrote a letter about a single data point as if it disproved climate change. Amazing your inability to see your own ignorance.
But you be you.
Chris, you display the rigid closed mind of a cult member.
The other point that’s largely being missed here is the sly duplicity of the media outlet that shamelessly peddles climate fear even when it’s refuted by their own reporting.
Record high was in 1914… record low was in 2025.
Intellectual sheep like Chris want you to swallow what you’ve been told, and not believe your own lying eyes….
Don’t be a sheep. Dare to think for yourself.
Key word is day. Here is some real data for you to explain with your ignorance of the difference between weather and climate:
The past decade has seen the warmest years (note the time period here) on record. For instance, 2024 was confirmed as the warmest year on record, with a global average temperature around 1.55 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 average. 2 degrees change in Celsius may not sound like much to someone who doesn’t understand the difference in weather and climate but to help with perspective: For roughly 11,000 years before the mid-19th century (the pre-industrial era)m Earth’s average temperature was remarkably stable, fluctuating within a relatively narrow range. While there were natural cycles of warming and cooling (like ice ages and interglacial periods driven by orbital changes or volcanic activity), these shifts occurred over thousands to tens of thousands of years.
For example, at the coldest part of the last ice age, global temperatures were about 5 degrees Celsius colder than today. At the peak of the last interglacial period, they were at most around 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. There were very slow, gradual changes on geological scales.
NOW, the 1.55 degree Celsius change we have seen recently has occurred over a mere 150+ years versus the typical thousands of years the earth experienced without man’s impact on climate. More crucially, the rate of warming has accelerated significantly. Since 1975, the rate has been more than three times as fast, at approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. So THAT is what makes the 1.55 figure so concerning.
But you go ahead and get excited about a cold day in May. The adults will handle the math and worry about addressing the real issues while you and the other anti-science children go play in the sand. Just don’t leave you head in the sand too long….
This guy Chris is really toxic.
Oh no, did I share scientific facts to counter anti-science misinformation and that trigger you?
No, it was your nasty personality that did that.
Must be a conservative given your childish name calling as the only response you have to offer.
But you be you.
Taken from Wikipedia:
“The Last Interglacial climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] …During the northern summer, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2–4 °C higher than in 2011.[12] .” As to your erroneous reference of a degree at most we have not risen another 1 to 3 degrees C in the last 15 years. While Wiki was well referenced, I would note some scientists believe the period even warmer than that.
Your comments about weather and climate are right, but you too are looking at short periods of time to make climate generalizations. A century is not very long in the big picture of climate. Note your references of thousands or even tens of thousands of years. It is also important to note that when looking at just the last century, that there is uncertainty in comparing data from different sources. Also is important to note is that this comparison compares our times with a time at the end of the little ice age. The time was an unusually cold period.
Yes the world is getting warmer the question of cause and significance remain conjectural.
Hello Chris,
Taken from Wikipedia:
“The Last Interglacial climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] …..During the northern summer, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2–4 °C higher than in 2011.[12] .” While Wiki was well referenced, I would note some scientists believe the interglacial period even warmer than what Wiki quotes.
Your comments about weather and climate are right, but you too are looking at relatively short periods of time to make climate generalizations. A century is not very long in the big picture of climate. Note your references of thousands or even tens of thousands of years. It is also important to note that when looking at just the last century, that there is uncertainty in comparing data derived from very different sources. Also is important to note is that this comparison period of 50 years compares to a time at the end of the little ice age. The time was an unusually cold period thought to be 2 degrees colder than average. Just think the global warming of the last 150 years just gets us back to average!
Yes the world is getting warmer the question of cause and significance remain conjectural.
Good points, Robert. The Leftists/Environmentalists will skew their studies and statistics so as to arrive at the conclusion they desire, often by adopting an atypical baseline.
It isn’t science; it’s propaganda. Pure propaganda.
The Globalists intend to use environmental fear mongering to enslave us and destroy our freedoms.